Hiroshima Peace Declaration on 81st anniversary of atomic bombing [Full
Text]
-
The following is the full text of the Peace Declaration read on Aug. 6 by
Hiroshima Mayor Kazumi Matsui at a ceremony to mark 81 years since the 1945
ato...
Latest Post
Showing posts with label shipbreaking code. Show all posts
Showing posts with label shipbreaking code. Show all posts
Threat to Indian maritime environment and security from viral diseases like covid-19 from ballast water and toxic substances
Written By mediavigil on Tuesday, October 13, 2020 | 9:19 AM
To
Chairman
Ship Breaking Scrap Committee
Union Ministry of Shipping
Government of India
Joint Secretary
Union Ministry of Shipping
Government of India
Subject: Threat to Indian maritime environment and security from viral diseases like covid-19 from ballast water and toxic substances
Sir
With reference to the news Toxic laden ship arriving at Alang (25 September, 2020), it is to inform you that a dubious ship named J-Nat (IMO No. 8100909) and its tug C-Cas (IMO No.8411047) which is pulling it is likely to arrive at Alang Anchorage, Bhavnagar, Gujarat on 14th October, 2020. The J-Nat ship includes about 1500 tonnes of mercury waste, 60 tons of slug oil, 1000 tons of slop oil, 500 burnt oiled water. The movement of the ship in Indian waters will be manifestly in violation of Section 6 of the Recycling of Ships Act, 2019.
I wish to submit that according to this legal provision no ship is allowed to install or use “prohibited hazardous materials”. It defines “ship” as “a vessel and floating structure of any type whatsoever operating or having operated in the marine environment and includes submersibles, floating craft, floating platforms, self-elevating platforms, the floating storage units, and the like.” Besides the threat of hazardous substances the ship in question poses a threat of covid-19 like viral disease from the ballast water of the ship. It is note withy that IMO’s Ballast Water Management Convention entered into force in September 2017, which requires that ships have to manage their ballast water to avoid the transfer of potentially invasive aquatic species. Ships take on ballast water at sea to maintain stability and minimize stress on the hull. This water may carry virus and bacteria to new locations, a process linked with deadly outbreaks of diseases among humans as well as threats to the marine environment.
I submit that the ship in question comes under the ambit the law. This vessel in question is currently owned by SOMAP International Pte Ltd, a Singapore-based company. It renamed the vessel as “J Nat” (ex- Jesslyn Natuna). Prior to this this vessel operated in the Natuna gas field under the ownership of Global Niaga Bersama PT, an Indonesian company.
I submit that the preamble of the Recycling of Ships Act refers to the Ship-breaking Code which regulates the recycling of ships in India. The Act does not override the pre-existing Code which was framed in compliance with the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. It is concerned with only those limited aspects that are not covered under the Code. It acknowledges the need “for the protection of environment and human health and safety during the process of recycling of ships”. It defines “hazardous material” as “any material or substance, which is liable to cause harm to human beings, other living creatures, plants, micro-organisms, property or the environment.”
I submit that with the enactment of the Recycling of Ships Act and ratification of International Maritime Organisation (IMO)’s Hong Kong International Convention for Safe and Environmentally Sound Recycling of Ships in November, 2019 by India, one of the world's five major ship recycling countries has made Alang beach deeply vulnerable. The Act came into force on December 16, 2019.
I submit that in an order dated 30th July, 2012, Chief Justice of India headed Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has directed that "....the concerned authorities shall strictly comply with the norms laid down in the Basel Convention or any other subsequent provisions that may be adopted by the Central Government in aid of a clean and pollution free maritime environment, before permitting entry of any vessel suspected to be carrying toxic and hazardous material into Indian territorial waters" in Union of India & Ors. Vs. Research Foundation for Science [I.A. Nos.61 & 62 of 2012]. Hon’ble Court’s order that led to framing of Shipbreaking Code also seeks “Confirmation to the effect that ballast water has been exchanged in the high seas”. I was an applicant in these cases.
I wish to also draw your attention towards UN’s Basel Technical Guidelines under the UN’s Basel Convention. At page 49-50, the Guidelines specifically points out: Ballast water which is fresh, brackish or marine water that has intentionally been brought on board a ship in order to adjust the ship’s stability and trim characteristics in accordance with various operating conditions “may contain pollutants, such as residual fuel, cargo hold residues, biocides, oil and grease, petroleum hydrocarbons, and metals (e.g. iron, copper, chromium, nickel, and zinc). Ballast water in cargo tanks (oil) is referred to as dirty ballast water. The transport of large volumes of water containing organisms from shallow, coastal waters across natural oceanic barriers can cause massive invasions of neritic marine organisms. Because ballast water is usually taken from bays and estuaries with water rich in animal and plant life, most ships carry a diverse assemblage of aquatic organisms. Aggregate sediments typically found in ballast tanks will contain living species which reflect the trade history of the vessel.”
It further adds: ‘The arrival condition of the dismantling candidate is most likely that of “in ballast”. The discharge of ballast water/ sediment species into the coastal sea-area may be a potential source for introducing unwanted organisms which threaten the ecological balance in the surrounding seas and thereby represent a direct threat to biodiversity. Ballast water can be the carrier of viruses and bacteria transferred to humans causing epidemics. In order to limit the biological threat represented by the introduction of invasive species via ballast water, the vessel should undergo recommended de-ballasting in accordance with IMO Assembly Resolution A.868(20): “Guidelines for the control and management of ships ballast water to minimise the transfer of harmful aquatic organisms and pathogens”, unless other regulations apply. It has been noted that some 32 end-of-life ships came to Alang beach during April-June 2020. ’As inquiry ought to be undertaken to ascertain whether the end-of-life ships which have been arriving during the lockdown period complied with these laws, regulations, guidelines and orders to take remedial containment measures.
I submit that the ship owners generally try escape decontamination cost and evade responsibility and accountability for the trafficking of toxic ships by misleading Indian
authorities. There is an immediate need to ensure that such hazardous ships are not dumped in ecologically fragile Indian coastal beach environment territory.
I submit that India is being turned into a dumping ground of foreign hazardous wastes because of the gullibility of Directorate General of Foreign Trade and Ministry of Commerce and Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change. They have attempted to legalise such dumping through series of amendments in the Hazardous Waste Management & Handling Rules under Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 at the behest of hazardous waste traders. This takes a heavy toll on the ecosystem of Alang beach, Bhavnagar, Gujarat and the inter-state migrant workers who work there under dirty, degrading and dangerous situations who worked even during the covod-19 lockdown. The concerned authorities ought to be also on alert against movement of bio-weapons and chemical weapons in disguise towards Indian waters.
In such a backdrop, I wish to request you to ensure that such ships do not enter Indian waters in order to safeguard India’s maritime environment and security from invasive species and virus.
Thanking you in anticipation.
warm regards
Gopal Krishna
ToxicsWatch
E-mail:krishnaruhani@gmail.com
Web:www.toxicswatch.org
Cc
Secretary, Ministry of Defence
Member Secretary, Ship Breaking Scrap Committee
Member, Ship Breaking Scrap Committee
Secretary, Ministry of Steel
Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change
Chairman, Central Pollution Control Board
Focal Point, Basel Convention, Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change
Shri S.D. Kaushik, Consultant, Ministry of Shipping
COMMENT OF TOXICSWATCH ALLIANCE (TWA) ON “CHANGES PROPOSED IN THE SHIP BREAKING CODE 2013
Written By mediavigil on Wednesday, November 04, 2015 | 12:17 AM
ToxicsWatch
Alliance (TWA)
To
Shri P.K. Sharma
Under Secretary
Union Ministry
of Shipping
Transport Bhawan
1, Parliament
Street
New
Delhi-110001
Subject- COMMENT
OF TOXICSWATCH ALLIANCE (TWA) ON “CHANGES PROPOSED IN THE SHIP BREAKING CODE
2013”
Sir,
This is with reference
to public notice dated September 11, 2015 inviting comments on the “changes
proposed in the ship breaking code 2013”.
On behalf of ToxicsWatch
Alliance (TWA), our comments are as under:
Title 1 (1)- The name
Ship Breaking Code 2013 should remain intact because all the existing national
international and relevant UN laws like Basel Convention refer to dismantling
of end-of-life ship as ‘ship breaking’. It does not appear to be numbered
properly.
Title 2 (i)- The existing provision should
remain as it is because both AERB and AEC are under Department of Atomic
Energy.
Title 2 (ii)- The proposed clause is
appropriate. It should be incorporated in the Code.
Title 2 (iii) (a)- The proposed clause is
appropriate. It should be incorporated in the Code.
Title 2 (ix) (a)- The proposed clause is
appropriate. It should be incorporated in the Code.
Title 2.2 - The existing provision is
appropriate. It should not be changed.
Title 3.2.1 - The proposed clause is
appropriate. It should be incorporated in the Code.
Title 3.2.2- The existing provision is
appropriate. It should not be changed.
Title 3.2.2 (i)- The existing provision is
appropriate. It should not be changed.
Title 3.2.2 (i) (d)- The existing provision is
appropriate. It should not be changed.
Title 3.3.2 (i) (h)- The existing provision is
appropriate. It should not be changed.
Title 3.3.2 (i) (j)- The existing provision is
appropriate. It should not be changed.
Title 3.3.2 (i) (k)- The existing provision is
appropriate. The proposed change about requirement for IMO No. should be added
as an additional requirement.
Title 3.3.2 (i) (m)- The existing provision is
appropriate. It should not be changed.
Title 3.3.2 (i) (o)- The proposed provision is
appropriate. It should be incorporated.
Title 3.3.2 (m)- The existing provision is
appropriate. The proposed change should be added as an additional requirement.
Title 3.3.2 (p)- The existing provision is
appropriate. The proposed change should be added as an additional requirement.
Title 3.3.2 (q)- The existing provision is
appropriate. The proposed change should be added as an additional requirement.
Title 3.3.2 (r)- The existing provision is
appropriate. The proposed change should be added as an additional requirement.
Title 3.3.3- The existing provision is
appropriate. The proposed change should be added as an additional requirement.
Title 3.4.2 - The existing provision is
appropriate. The proposed change should be added as an additional requirement.
Title 3.5.2 (ii) (a)- The existing provision
is appropriate. The proposed change should not be accepted under any situation
keeping national security and maritime security in mind.
Title 3.5.2 (ii) (b)- The existing provision
is appropriate. The proposed change should not be accepted under any situation
keeping national security and maritime security in mind.
Title 3.5.2 (ii) (c)- The existing provision
is appropriate. The proposed change should not be accepted under any situation
keeping national security and maritime security in mind.
Title 3.6.1- The existing provision is
appropriate. The proposed change should not be accepted under any situation
keeping national security and maritime security in mind.
Title 3.6.1 (c)- The existing provision is
appropriate. The proposed change should not be accepted under any situation
keeping national security and maritime security in mind.
Title 3.6.1 (j)- The existing provision is
appropriate. The proposed change should not be accepted.
Title 4.1.2- The existing provision is
appropriate. The proposed change should not be accepted.
Title 4.1.2 (iv)- The existing provision is
appropriate. The proposed change should not be accepted.
Title 4.1.2 (v)- The existing provision is appropriate.
The proposed change should not be accepted keeping national security and
maritime security in mind.
Title 4.1.2 (vi)- The existing provision is
appropriate. The proposed change may be incorporated as well.
Title 4.1.2 (vii)- The proposed provision is
appropriate. It should be incorporated.
Title 4.2.2 (a)- The proposed provision is
appropriate. It should be incorporated.
Title 4.2.2 (b)- The proposed provision is
appropriate. It should not be deleted.
Title 4.2.2 (c)- The proposed provision is
appropriate. It should not be altered.
Title 4.2.2 (f)- The proposed provision is
inappropriate. It should not be incorporated.
Title 4.2.8- The proposed provision is
appropriate. It should be incorporated.
Title 4.3.1- The existing provision is
appropriate. It should remain intact. The suggested changes may be incorporated
additionally.
Title 4.4.6- The proposed provision is
appropriate. It should be incorporated.
Title 5.1.1- The proposed provision is
appropriate. It should be incorporated.
Title 5.3.2 (vi)- The existing provision is
appropriate. It should remain intact. It is strange that someone is attempting
to shield official who provides false certification or fails to detect false
certification. The proponent of such motivated change merit inquiry to
ascertain whether he is currently involved in such activities wherein officials
happen to provide false certification.
Title 5.3.2 (viii)- The proposed provision is
appropriate. It should be incorporated.
Title 6.1.1 (xii)- The proposed provision is
appropriate. It should be incorporated.
Title 6.1.1 (xv)- The proposed provision is
appropriate. It should be incorporated.
Title 6.2.2 (ii)- The existing provision is
appropriate. It should remain intact.
Title 6.2.3- The existing provision is
appropriate. It should remain intact.
Title 6.3.2- The proposed provision is
appropriate. It should be incorporated.
Title 6.4.1 (x) SI.1 Col.4- The existing
provision is appropriate. It should remain intact.
Title 6.4.1 (x) SI.2 Col.4- The proposed
provision is appropriate. It should be incorporated.
Title 6.4.1 (x) SI.3 Col.4- The proposed
provision is appropriate. It should be incorporated.
Title 6.4.1 (x) SI.5 Col.3- The proposed
provision is appropriate. It should be incorporated.
Title 6.4.1 (x) SI.5 Col.4- The proposed
provision is appropriate. It should be incorporated.
Title 6.4.1 (x) SI.9 Col.4- The proposed
provision is appropriate. It should be incorporated.
Title 6.4.1 (x) SI.10 Col.4- The proposed
provision is appropriate. It should be incorporated.
Title 6.4.1 (x) SI.18 Col.3- The proposed
provision is appropriate. It should be incorporated.
Title 6.4.1 (x) SI.18 Col.4- The proposed
provision is appropriate. It should be incorporated.
Title 6.4.1 (xii) - The proposed provision is
appropriate. It should be incorporated.
Title 6.4.2- The proposed provision is
appropriate. It should be incorporated.
Title 6.4.3- The proposed provision is
appropriate. It should be incorporated.
Title 6.5.1- The proposed provision is
appropriate. It should be incorporated.
Title 6.5.7- The proposed provision is
appropriate. It should be incorporated.
Title 6.6.1 (f)- The
proposed provision is appropriate. It should be incorporated.
Title 6.9 (ii)- The
proposed provision is appropriate. It should be incorporated.
Title 6.12.4- The
existing provision is appropriate. It should remain intact. The proposed
changes can be added as an additional measure.
Title 7.16.5- The
proposed provision is appropriate. It should be incorporated.
Title 8.1.2- The
proposed provision is appropriate. It should be incorporated.
Title 8.1.2 (a)- The
proposed provision is appropriate. It should be incorporated.
Title 8.4.1 (iii)- The
existing provision is appropriate. It should remain intact. The proposed
changes can be added as an additional measure.
Title 8.4.1 Annexure
VI, 7-The existing provision is appropriate. It should remain intact keeping
national security in mind. The proposed changes can be added as an additional
measure. The details of any radioactive material recovered from the ship after
anchoring and beaching might appear to be presenting a case of fait accompli.
The penalty and punishment for false declaration by the owner of the ship must
be both under civil and criminal law.
We submit that it is
apparent that some of the changes proposed in the ship breaking code 2013 are
in violation of the letter and spirit of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order UN’s
Basel Convention and Hazardous Waste Management Rules under the Environment
Protection Act 1986. The ‘stakeholder’ who has proposed some motivated changed
must be inquired into to ascertain whether or not it is complying with the
existing Code prepared in pursuance of the directions of the Hon’ble Court.
We
submit that union shipping ministry's soft corner for IMO's Hong Kong
Convention which is unlikely to enter into force is deeply problematic and
is contrary to India’s long held position. This is a deceptive Convention meant
to cater to the vested interests of ship owning developed countries.
We wish to draw your attention
towards non-compliance with the Code, Supreme Court Order and a letter received
by Union Ministry of Shipping in the matter of ship breaking from Shri Rajgopal
Sharma, Advisor, Indian Embassy, Brussels dated December 22, 2011.
We submit that despite repeated
recommendations issues with regard to occupational health of workers, national
security linked with environmental security and entry of dead vessels in India
waters on fake documents remains unattended. As a consequence, hundreds
of ships have entered Indian water in violation of Supreme Court's order.
We wish to draw your attention
towards UN Special Rapporteur's report which reads, "Regulatory
authorities in Alang/Sosiya and the shipbreaking industry should step up their
efforts to improve health and safety in the yards" because he also states
and observes his major concerns as "the health and safety situation prevailing
at the shipbreaking yards continues to remain critical, as witnessed by the 12
fatal accidents that occurred in Alang/Sosiya during the course of 2009, and
there are a number of identifiable shortcomings which need to be
addressed" at page 12 of the report.
The
report states, "Health facilities in Alang/Sosiya do not possess
sufficient human, technical and financial resources to provide any treatment
other than first aid for minor injuries. The nearest hospital equipped to deal
with life-threatening conditions is in Bhavnagar, more than 50 kilometres away.
The Red Cross hospital in Alang, which the Special Rapporteur visited, can
count on only four medical doctors and nine beds to provide health care not
only to some 30,000 workers in the yards, but also to the neighbouring villages
of Alang (which has a population of about 18,000 people) and Sosiya (4,000
people)" on page 14.
It
observes, "In Mumbai the situation is even worse, with no permanent
facilities except first aid and ambulance services." It notes, "most
workers, but reportedly also a number of yard owners, are not aware of the
serious life-threatening work-related diseases which may result from long-term
exposure to toxic and hazardous substances and materials present on end-of-life
ships. In particular, it appears that the majority of the workforce and the
local population do not know the adverse consequences of prolonged exposure to
asbestos dusts and fibres and are not familiar with the precautions that need
to be taken to handle asbestos-containing materials."
It is true that "The majority of the workforce lives in overcrowded makeshift facilities just outside the yards. Most accommodations lack basic amenities such as kitchens, toilet facilities, electricity and running water. The water and sanitation facilities available in Alang/Sosiya remain grossly inadequate to deal with the consumption, cooking, and personal and domestic hygienic requirements of the 30,000 workers who work and live there. In Mumbai, the situation is even worse, with no safe drinking water available in the yards."
It is true that "The majority of the workforce lives in overcrowded makeshift facilities just outside the yards. Most accommodations lack basic amenities such as kitchens, toilet facilities, electricity and running water. The water and sanitation facilities available in Alang/Sosiya remain grossly inadequate to deal with the consumption, cooking, and personal and domestic hygienic requirements of the 30,000 workers who work and live there. In Mumbai, the situation is even worse, with no safe drinking water available in the yards."
On
page 13, he observes, "the vast majority of the workforce in Mumbai do not
receive any information on the hazards or risks to health and safety, nor do
they receive any training on how to avoid or minimize them. With regard to
safety training, the Special Rapporteur is of the view that existing training
opportunities in Alang/Sosiya should be improved, considering the magnitude of
the risks associated with shipbreaking activities and the hazardous substances
workers are potentially exposed to." The report adds, "Due to the
informal nature of working arrangements, workers are not covered by social
protection schemes, and do not receive any benefit in case of work-related
injuries or diseases."
The
Special Rapporteur observes, employers do not pay for long-term medical
treatment or for expenses linked to chronic work-related illnesses. Workers do
not usually receive any wages or benefits when absent from work on medical
grounds. UN Special Rapporteur's assessment reads:”…in India ships are
dismantled on beaches, a method commonly referred to as “beaching”. This method
of ship dismantling fails to comply with generally accepted norms and standards
on environmental protection. Although very little work has been carried out to
assess its environmental impact, the dismantling of ships on sandy beaches
without any containment other than the hull of the ship itself appears to have
caused high levels of contamination of soil, air, and marine and freshwater
resources in many South Asian countries, and to have adversely affected the
livelihood of local communities surrounding the shipbreaking facilities, which
often rely on agriculture and fishing for their subsistence" at page 9 of
the report.
We
submit that UN Special Rapporteur's recommends "an independent study be
carried out to assess the actual and potential adverse effects caused by the
discharge of hazardous substances and materials into the natural environment.
Such a study should also assess the steps that need to be taken for the gradual
phasing out of “beaching” in favour of more environmentally friendly methods of
shipbreaking" at page 21 of the report.
With regard to Shri Rajgopal
Sharma's letter, we submit that European Commission (EC) official in his
conversation with Shri Sharma has admitted that currently all trade in dead ships
is illegal. The end of life vessels from Europe which constitutes 17 % of world
merchant fleet violates Basel Convention, Supreme Court's order and their own
EU Waste Shipment Regulation, 2006. It is clear from the letter that EC
wants to legitimize its illegal traffic in end of life vessels by amending its
EU Waste Shipment Regulation from April 2012 onwards to order to easily
transfer their hazardous wastes laden dead ships like Le Clemenceau to Indian
beaches while protecting their own.
We submit that this development
ought be looked at in the context of the Free Trade Agreements
(FTAs) with countries like Japan
(1078 page long agreement) and EU (under negotiation but currently suspended)
who have been promoting hazardous wastes trade along with countries such as US,
Germany, and the UK appear to be outwitting UN’ conventions and Supreme Court’s
order by indulging in linguistic corruption by referring to hazardous wastes as
recyclable material and non-new goods.
We
submit that as of now only Basel Convention is applicable to shipbreaking
issue. We are aware that Ministry of Environment Forests and Climate Change has
proposed to ban shipbreaking of foreign ships in a recent meeting. This process
should be initiated in phases and the in the meanwhile the shipbreaking
activity should be gradually shifted from the beach a fragile coastal
environment.
In view of the above, we earnestly
request you to incorporate remedial measures in the Code at the earliest to
safeguard our environmental borders.
Thanking You
Yours faithfully
Gopal Krishna
ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA)
Mb: 09818089660, 08227816731
E-MAIL:1715krishna@gmail.com