Ship-breaking: Points, counterpoints and a focal point

Although countries such as Thailand, South Korea and Taiwan, much before their current state of prosperity, decided to phase out ship breaking on grounds of sustainability, the debate continues in Bangladesh as some consider this "industry' vital for "development" and hence instead of shifting to other readily available alternatives as has been the case with the vast majority of countries round the world, they seek to make ship breaking "safe and environment friendly".
In the process the government rather than seeking to resolve basic issues, is relying heavily on the factually inaccurate and misleading claims of the ship breakers even to extent of saving forests by resorting to breaking the ships!
Advocates of ship breakers in the government seem to have no time to ascertain how other countries of the world continue to survive and "develop" without their own iron ores and without reliance on ship-breaking, to inquire into why barring a mere five countries, all others (including Thailand and Taiwan) have closed down ship breaking instead of trying to make it "environment friendly", why developed countries not blessed with iron ores but having the best technology to dismantle ships, are not doing so.  Neither is there the willingness on the part of the government to find out why the price of iron goes up in Bangladesh despite having the largest scale of ship breaking in the country. Have the price of flats remained low or within the buying capacity of "middle class "because of the "noble" service of the ship breakers?
Has any government agency ever attempted to ascertain the standard of steel that ship breaking provides? Has there been any effort from the government to undertake a neutral and credible cost benefit analysis of this "industry"?
For some, no surprises here, the calculation may be simple- when a ship costs Taka 300 million and a life, if lost, costs only Taka 0.1 million (one lakh), the urge to engage in ship breaking is powerful and the government instead of punishing polluters, proposes "zoning" for "ship breaking" as it is an "emerging growth industry"!
The ship breakers initially gave only two main reasons for the industry to survive- "supply of iron" and "employment generation". They claimed that the industry provides 80% of the total iron demand of the country. This is wrong. Although in the year 2009, the supply of iron by the ship breakers went really high, documents of the customs department clearly show that the industry supplied around 0.8 million (8.0 lakh) metric tons of iron in 2005, around 1.2 million (12 lakh) in 2006 and around 0.6 million (6 lakh) from January, 2007- July, 2008 against the total iron demand of 30 lakh metric tons. The ship breakers themselves in a statement published in almost all leading dailies made it clear that they supply only 25-30% of the iron demand of the country whereas the rest is met by import from other sources.
In same statement, ship breakers categorically asserted that they do not supply 80% of the iron demand. The ship breakers and their allies in the government also could not justify more than 3, 500 direct employment in the industry. If the question is about the workers of the re-rolling mills, the answer is simple. The re-rolling mills do not need ship-breaking for their survival, they simple need "iron" and that is importable, as is case with almost all other countries.
The cry of the ship breakers for the workers can be negated without further argument if people watch the documentary "iron eaters" that shows how exploitative the multimillionaire ship breakers are against their famine- struck ultra poor labourers! By the way, the documentary was filmed in a yard that is supposed to have best working condition of all the yards!
The ship breakers are clever indeed! When the environmentalists and development workers rebutted their pleas on employment and iron supply, they have started giving new arguments in favour of the industry. Now they claim that since the ships bring old furniture that is sold at lower prices, it has not only managed to create a market for "old furniture" but has saved the forests from being chopped down! For those who may not know, the entire ship breaking yard has been established in an area that once had coastal mangrove forests. Again, the countries of the world who have the most dense forests have not required a ship breaking industry to protect their forests.
According to the ship breakers, this industry needs to stay as it provides various parts and generators to other industries. It can't be emphasized more that instead of getting the parts and generators from ships that are more than 25 years old, the customers should be encouraged to look for new parts and generators that will survive longer and give better services. It is hard to appreciate how these kinds of arguments sell when even brand new generators hardly serve for five to six years. Needless to say we live in "amazing Bangladesh".
As they claim, the ship breakers pay a revenue of Taka 7.0 billion (700 crore) to the government. If the government decides (and for God's sake, let it do so) to switch to alternatives, this amount shall not go down. Even today, taxation on scrap and billets stand higher than taxation on ship scraps. Hence alternatives will not only save the coastal environment and the helpless labourers, but give the government higher revenue, if that is what it only cares about!
Following protests from people engaged in the shipping business the ship breakers appear to have given up their claim that they feed the newly emerging ship building industry with raw materials. While due to specifications provided by the buyers, there is hardly any chance to use the redundant materials of old scrap ships in the process of building new vessels, the Ministry of Shipping is yet not convinced that such claims of the ship-breakers do not hold much water.
The last and the most "irrefutable" argument of the ship breakers remain to be the payment of "bank loans"! Their recent claim is that they have 42 precious ships lined up in our coastal area and the import of all these ships involves huge amount of money of public and private banks. So if not for the iron or for the famine-struck workers of the north or for the ship breakers, they should be allowed to be in for saving the banks from 'huge' losses.
Did we not hear recently that the Governor of Bangladesh Bank has warned the banks not to give any credit to any polluting industry?
As countries of the world expect five have closed down their ship-breaking industry, it is mortifying to note that our Ministry of Shipping is testing the feasibility of expanding it further to Kuakata or Borguna and in the process serving the death rites to the world's largest mangrove of the Sundarbans.
It is also shocking to note that the same ministry is trying to become focal point of ship-breaking and for that has sent out a tactical letter to the cabinet. When the highest court of the country has rebuked the ministry for misinterpreting its order, will the government reward it with something that demands utmost transparency and objectivity? If asking question is not wrong, then what has "ship-breaking" got to do with "transportation" or "shipping", may we ask?
Although patriotic and productive forces like farmers do not call for strikes, in the last few months, the ship breakers went on strike more than once. The reasons were two fold. Although they submit pre-cleaning certificates, they can't submit such certificates from authorized agents and hence the Import Policy Order developed following the order of the Court has to be amended. Second, the directives of the court to obtain clearance certificate prior to breaking of ships has to be compromised with as they can't meet the directives of the Department of Environment (DoE). While in the first instance the ministries concerned bowed to the pressure of the ship breakers and amended the law of the land, in the second instance the 11-day long work abstention has been withdrawn, God knows on what assurance! The ship breakers want a year for complying with the directives of the DoE. Fair enough, but till then they have to refrain from breaking ships as otherwise year long "business as usual" by them may cost as many as 34 young lives! If the supporting ministries allow this to happen then the assumption on our part is straight forward. The supporting ministries will take the responsibilities of their decision and consequent casualties. For many of us, the better option for the government is to make use of the Essential Commodities Act, 1956 and issue necessary directions on the ship breakers (whom a government report of 2008 found to be operating in syndicate) to import required amount of iron, process the same and supply it at fair and equitable prices to people.
Let us be decisive now. There should be no further expansion of ship breaking as proposed by the Ministry of Shipping. The government should strictly regulate the industry on the basis of "rules" and not "policies" as the latter is not enforceable. The focal point for "regulating" the industry should not be any single agency, rather a team including the Ministry of Environment and Forest (as this ministry if the focal point of the Basel Convention that still regulates ship breaking and following the EU countries, can be made the focal point in the IMO convention which is yet to come into effect), the Ministry of Labour Welfare (as the industry inherently poses severe hazards to the workers) and if needed, the Ministry of Industry.
In any event, it can't be the Ministry of Shipping as it has no jurisdiction to deal with "industry", "environment and pollution of soil, water and air" or "labour welfare" either under the rules of business or under national and international law and has by now lost its neutrality on the issue.