Term Paper onSafety Procedure and Compensation
in the Ship Breaking Industry of BangladeshTerm paper on
Safety Procedure and Compensation
in the Ship Breaking Industry of Bangladesh
Prepared for
Professor Shakil Huda
Prepared by
Sayeed Mohammad Hamed Shah
MBA-44 D
Sec-A Roll: 44
30th May, 2010
INSTITUTE OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
UNIVERSITY OF DHAKAMay 30, 2010
Mr. Shakil HudaProfessor
Institute of Business Administration
University of Dhaka
Dear Sir:
Subject: Submission of the term paper on Safety procedure and
compensation in the ship breaking industry of BangladeshI am
pleased to present to you my term paper on Safety procedure and
compensation in the ship breaking industry of Bangladesh
Preparation for this term paper has been an interesting and
learning experience for me. I have come across so many aspects of
the ship breaking industry and impact in our economy. But the main
aim of this paper is to focus on the safety measures for workers
employed in this sector and how they are compensated. .
I have enjoyed working on this paper and hope that this work
will meet the level of your expectations. Your guidance and
continuous assistance helped me a lot to achieve my goals. In case
of any more queries, please feel free to contact. I will be
available anytime at your convenience.
Sincerely,
S.M.Hamed Shah
AcknowledgmentsFirst, I would like to thank Professor Shakil
Huda for giving me the opportunity to carry out this term paper. It
has been an interesting experience working on this paper. In
addition, I am delighted that I have learnt a lot about ship
breaking industry of Bangladesh.
While doing the report, I have had tremendous responses from the
people I talked with. I specially recall the guidance of Mr. Khalid
Chowdhury, Barrister, in pre-paring the report. His valuable
insight has helped me immensely. I am indebted to the officials of
Bangladesh Environmental lawyers Association (BELA), for sharing
elaborately their experiences with me.Table of Content
Executive Summary
1. Introduction
1.1 Origin of the report
1.2 Objective
1.3 Scope
1.4 Methodology
1.5 Limitations of the study
2. A Glimpse on the Ship Breaking Industry of Bangladesh
2.1 History
2.2 Present status of the industry3. Labour Law 2006: Rules
Regarding Safety and Compensation4. International Framework on Ship
Breaking Industry
4.1 Basel Convention
4.2 International Maritime Organization (IMO)
4.3 International Labour Organization (ILO)
4.4 United Nations Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR)5. Present
Scenario of Safety Measures in the Shipyard5.1 Government Directed
to Ensure Workers Safety on Ship Breaking Yards
6. The Existing Practice of Compensation
6.1 The Formal Procedure
6.1.1 Right to Claim Compensation
6.1.2 Compensation Following Injuries
6.2 The Actual Scenario
7. Role of International Players
8. Recommendations
9. Conclusion
List of TableTable 1: Fatal Accidents Record From 1998-2010
Table 2: Payment to the Affected WorkersExecutive SummaryWhen
Bangladesh joined the fray of ship breaking industry many people
frowned thinking that the endeavour will not sustain. But a pool of
risk taking entrepreneur and thousands of hard working workers have
paved the way for Bangladesh to make its mark in this sector.
Gradually this industry has become one of the thrust sectors of our
country. Employees of this sector are also a party of this
contribution. But the people key players, yet the most neglected
ones, are the workers. Various categories of workers involved in
ship breaking operation remain outside the purview of policy
intervention. They are coming from every corner of Bangladesh to
earn a living despite knowing that the working conditions are in a
deplorable state. Non-availability of safety measure poses a great
challenge to the workers enhancing uncertainties and risks. The
facilities like health, medical, sanitation and financial security
are substandard. As a result many are fallen into illness and
killed in accidents. This is quite natural for this industrial
environment setting where there is inadequate protection and
inspection.There are certain legal and environmental framework to
protect the rights of the workers like Labour law 2006, Basel
Convention etc. Couple of organizations such as Bangladesh
Environmental Lawyers Association (BELA), International Labour
Organization (ILO), and Greenpeace International etc are also
monitoring the operations of the shipyard owners.By any standards,
the demolition of ships is a dirty and dangerous occupation. In
present situation workers barely have safety facilities and
provision of compensation. The number of accidents and compensation
is quite disproportionate. Though The Labour Law 2006 has strict
regulations regarding workers safety and compensation, in the ship
breaking industry it seems to be rather an alien concept. Rampant
violation of laws has made the industry a least preferable place to
work but acute poverty compels the poor fellows to embrace the risk
in this sector.It is true that this industry is injecting a huge
sum in the economy but it cannot be an excuse of the anomalies in
within it. As conscious citizens shipyard owners have some
responsibilities to their fellow workers let alone the society. The
onus to provide a secured workplace is on the owners and government
can play a pivotal role to make sure that these responsibilities
are being performed perfectly. Though there are some
non-governmental organizations working persistently against the
tide, they need support from the supreme authority of the
nation.
At present, sufficient research has been undertaken by enough
agencies (including the ILO) to identify the problems and hazards
associated with ship-breaking. There are only a handful of
countries which order ships, there are fewer which build them and
even less that decommission them. Each group of countries could be
specifically targeted, for example, to require those ordering ships
to write recyclable material into their specifications and to
document any hazardous material used. Through cooperation we can
turn this industry in to a highly productive one coupled with a
much safer place for the workers.1. Introduction
The introductory chapter aims to provide the scope and objective
of the study followed by a glimpse on the ship breaking sector of
Bangladesh.
1.1 Origin of the report
This report has been prepared for Professor Shakil Huda,the
course instructor of Legal Environment of Business as a requirement
to fulfill the course. The attempt in this report is to evaluate
the prevalent safety measures and practice of compensation in the
ship breaking industry.
1.2 Objective:
The broad objective of the study is to analyse the workplace
condition of the ship breaking industry. The specific objective is
to analyse the existing safety procedures and compensation in light
of the Labour law Act 20061.3 Scope
In Bangladesh, workers in different sector are facing life
threatening problems each and every day. Ship breaking sector is
not an exception. Very few employers are aware of the fact that
such negligence of safety measures can be very dangerous. In this
paper I will try to shade some light on the existing working
condition of this sector and the kind of compensation a worker can
get in case of any accident. 1.4 Methodology
The paper has been prepared on the basis of secondary data
collected from the organizations, related with ship breaking, which
have their branches in Dhaka. Some important information have also
been gathered from Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association
(BELA). The personnel of BELA also gave significant insights about
the issue which are included in the paper later on. Internet and
some articles are also used to elaborate the topic.
1.4 Limitations
The research or study reports published on ship breaking
industries are mainly on detrimental impacts of such risky
activities. No complete report on the condition of labour in the
yard, only very few or partial study is done which does not focus
the real situation. Most of the previous studies are based on the
environmental effect due to ship breaking industries but rights of
labour and their humanitarian life did not get priority in those
report.2. A Glimpse on the Ship Breaking Industry of Bangladesh2.1
HistoryShip-breaking on the beachheads of Asian developing
countries is claimed to be among one of the worlds most dangerous
and hazardous occupations endangering the safety and lives of
thousands of workers. More than 90 per cent of it takes place on
the beaches of Bangladesh (Chittagong), India (Alang), Pakistan
(Gaddani estate in Baluchistan) and in China.In Bangladesh the ship
breaking industry started its operations in the 1960s when a Greek
ship MD Alpine was stranded on the shores of Sitakund, Chittagong
after a severe cyclone. The ship remained there for a long time
before the Chittagong Steel House brought the vessel and scrapped
it. During the Liberation War in 1971, a Pakistani ship Al Abbas
was damaged by bombing. It was later salvaged and brought to the
Fauzdarhat seashore. In 1974, Karnafully Metal Works Ltd bought it
as scrap, introducing commercial ship breaking in Bangladesh. The
industry flourished during the 1980s. Today it has become large and
profitable industry for Bangladesh.1Ship scrapping is the process
of dismantling an obsolete vessels structure for scrapping or
disposal carried out at a beach pier, dry dock or dismantling slip.
It includes a wide range of activities, from removing all gear and
equipment to cutting down and recycling the ships structure. It is
a challenging process, due to the structural complexity of the
ships and the involvement of many environmental, safety, and health
issues2. There are almost 600 outmoded ships usually broken in the
yard without any prior cleaning. More than 3,000ships with the
toxic wastes therein have been exported over the last five years to
Asian ship breaking yards3. Although the steel is recycled, the
toxic substances such as PCBs, metals, asbestos, lead, waste oil,
TBT, etc enter into the environment and into the bodies of the
workers. A new EU report on the phasing out and scrapping of single
hull oil tankers concluded that 2,200 oil tankers would have to be
scrapped after the end of their commercial life by the year 20104.
2.2 Present status of the industry
Bangladesh is dependent on ship scrapping for fulfil its
domestic demands for steel and iron. Ship scrapping is not
regulated by environmental law, nor is there care for the health
and safety of the workers. Workers of Bangladesh break up European
vessels with no protection from explosions, asbestos or a mixture
of toxic chemicals contained in the ship. Over the last 20 years
more than 400 workers have been killed and about 6000 were
seriously. Workers cut down steel plates continuously without
uniforms, protective gloves, boots and goggles. Workers, local
community, beach, coastal water, biodiversity, ground water and air
all are at risk during this process. About 50,000 people are
engaged directly in the ship scrapping activities at the actual
yards, an additional 200,000 people are dependent on scrapping
activities including the indirect employment created by
re-fabrication, recycling and distribution5.Most of the ship
breaking workers come from the poverty stricken northern region of
Bangladesh where there are limited employment opportunities.
Usually, the workers are not given an appointment letter and there
is no formal contract between the employer and the employee.
Workers have been unable to enforce their right to permanent and
secure employment as they are unable to demonstrate an employment
relationship exist between the yard owners and themselves. Their
wages depend on the number of hours worked as well as the type of
work and skill level. They have no entitlement to overtime, sick or
annual leave. Their wages range from 85-180 taka.
It was found that majority of the labour (40.75%) are between
the ages of 18-22 years old. Only 1.13% of labour is between 46-60
years old. One of the most disturbing findings was that child
labour (under the age of 18) made up 10.94% of the workforce.
46.42% of yard workers are illiterate while 43.02% attained primary
school education.
There are no arrangements for pure drinking water, healthy food,
hygienic toilets and living conditions for the workers. It was
observed that 86.44% of the labour force stated that they received
no medical facilities from the ship yard owners, 5.93% said they
received medical facilities, 4.15% said they got medical facilities
but in a nominal way or by way of first aid treatment and 1.69%
stated sometimes they got medical facilities and sometimes not. As
the government has not recognised it as an industry, the industry
based labour laws (for example the Factory Act 1965) do not apply.
Though the workers have been working in the scrap yards for years
they are not allowed to form or join a trade union to bargain and
enforce their rights. The workers are deprived of proper
compensation due to the lack of a valid contract. In order to
maximize profits little is done to lessen the risk of accidents.3.
Labour law 2006The labour law 2006 was approved by the president of
People Republic of Bangladesh on 11 October, 2006. With the
enactment of the Bangladesh Labour Act 2006 which consolidated laws
then spread out over 25 Acts and Regulations including the
Factories Act 1965 the scope of legal protection was extended
beyond factories to cover all establishments. This meant that the
health and safety protections in the new Act applied to
construction sites and offices3 (though offices of or under
thegovernment4, agricultural farms employing less than ten
workers5, and private households employing domestic workers6 are
exempt from compliance with the Act). The law encompasses the
recruitment of the worker, the relation between the owner and the
workers, determination of minimum wage, payment of wage, formation
of trade union, the health, safety, welfare and the condition and
environment of the work place and all other aspects regarding the
worker. The ship breaking is a high risk industry for the worker.
So we will focus on the safety and compensation portion of the
labour law 2006:
Chapter 2(5): No owner can employ any worker without giving him
a contract and the employed worker must be given an identity card
with photograph attached.
Chapter 6(73) : in any industry, any pit or opening is such that
it can be dangerous for its depth, site, construction or the
internal object of the pit, in that case it should be fenced with
strong fence or should be covered with.
Chapter 6(74): in any industry, worker will not lift, carry or
move any heavy weight object that can cause harm to him.
Chapter 6(75) : if the production process is such that can cause
any harm to the eyes of the workers the law orders that for the
safety of the worker it is mandatory to use suitable spectacles or
eye cover.
(a) The danger of the eye, for the particle scattered from the
process.
(b) The threat to the eye(s) for high intensity light or
heat.
Chapter 6(78) .1 : In any plant or industry, if the gas, smoke
or dust of such nature that it can explode or spark any time , in
that case, to stop that explosion the following steps should be
taken:
(a) to cover the plant or machinery while using them.
(b) Not to let pile up the gas, smoke, dust.
Chapter 6(78).4: if for any plant or industry, in any plant or
pit or well contains or possibility to contain explosive or spark
able gas, smoke, then in that place no cutting or welding work
should take place, if any measure is taken to drive out the gas
from that place or any hot substance hot enough to ignite the gases
should not be allowed to enter into that place before the material
is cold enough.
Chapter 7(79): if the government is pleased that, in any
industry the worker involved in the process is susceptible to any
physical injury , toxication or affected by any diseases, than in
that case, the government can declare following written order
against that industry :
(a) declare which process is risky
(b) to declare not to employ women, juvenile or children to tat
process
(c) to examine the health of the workers involved in that
process on regular basis and to revoke the employment of unfit
personnel to that work
(d) To use a special outfit to protect the personnel working in
the process or outside the process.
(e) To give notice about the injurious chemical substance and to
be careful about handling them
Chapter 7(80): to give notice about the accident, the casualties
or injuries due to that accident or any accidental explosion,
ignition or eruption of smoke within two working days.
Chapter 7(81): if any accidents take place, whether there is
injury or not, the owner must inform the inspector within three
working days.
Chapter 7(82):
(a) if any worker is affected by any diseases of 2nd tafsill in
that case owner, or involved worker will in the definite form and
stipulated time will inform the inspector through notice.
(b) If any registered physician while the treatment of any
present or past worker of any company find out that he is affected
from any diseases registered in the 2nd tafsill, then he will
inform the inspector about the followings:
1. the name of the patient and the postal address
2. the disease the worker is affected
3. the company worker is working or worked immediate past
(c) government by any order can add or delete any disease from
the 2nd tafsill
chapter 7 (83): in the case of accidental explosion, fire or any
other accident, if any disease of the 2nd tafsill is spreading then
the government can order an investigation and can employ any
suitable person for this purpose.
Chapter 7(84): any inspector, informing the owner of the factory
during normal working hour can enter the premise of the accident
and collect sample. If the owner is present then he will divide the
sample into three and in every [art of the 3 sample put seal and
logo and provide the owner to put his own seal and logo. Then the
inspector will give one part to the owner , send 2nd one to analyze
and keep the other part on his custody to present as prove to the
court in case of criminal proceedings.
Chapter 7(88): government can constitute law or take special
actions for the workers employed in any risky industry for their
safety.
Chapter 8(89): every company during its normal working hour will
ensure the availability of the first aid box within reach.
1. the number of the box will not be less than one for 150
workers
2. the box will be handed to such a per son who has training of
first aid and is available during normal working hour.
3. in every working room a notice containing his name must
sent.
Chapter 8(90): any factory more than 25 workers should maintain
a safety record book.Chapter 9(100): any adult worker will not work
more than 8 hours a day or no one can compel him to do so. But
according to contract in some industry, workers may work up to 10
hours.
Chapter 9(101):
1. no worker is bound to work more than 6 hours if he is not
allowed to an hour for rest and for food purpose
2. no worker is bound to work more than 5 hours if he is not
allowed to take half an hour break.
3. not bound to work more than eight hours if not allowed one or
two breaks.
Chapter 9(102): Any adult worker is not bound to work in any
factory more than 48 hours. Under act 108 he can work more than 48
hours. But he will not work more than 60 hour in a week and
annually on average he will not work more than 56 hours in a
week.
Chapter 9(103): a worker will enjoy a weekly holiday every
week.
Chapter 9(104): if any worker work more than his normal working
hour he is entitled to get 2 times the payment than his normal
payment
Chapter 9(106): the worker is entitled to enjoy 14 days of sick
leave. This leave will not compile and the leave of a year van not
be enjoyed in other year.
4. International Framework on Ship Breaking Industry
4.1 BASEL Convention
To control the trans-boundary movement of wastes that are
hazardous to the environment, nations signed Basel convention to
restrict the environment from the evil of chemical pollution. The
obligations of the parties according to Basel Convention are
as:
1. (a) Parties exercising their right to prohibit the import of
hazardous wastes or other wastes for disposal shall inform the
other Parties of their decision pursuant to Article 13.
(b) Parties shall prohibit or shall not permit the export of
hazardous wastes and other wastes to the Parties which have
prohibited the import of such wastes, when notified pursuant to
subparagraph (a) above.
(c) Parties shall prohibit or shall not permit the export of
hazardous wastes and other wastes if the State of import does not
consent in writing to the specific import, in the case where that
State of import has not prohibited the import of such wastes.
2. Each Party shall take the appropriate measures to:
(a) Ensure that the generation of hazardous wastes and other
wastes within it are reduced to a minimum, taking into account
social, technological and economic aspects;
(b)Ensure the availability of adequate disposal facilities, for
the environmentally sound management of hazardous wastes and other
wastes, that shall be located, to the extent possible, within it,
whatever the place of their disposal;
(c) Ensure that persons involved in the management of hazardous
wastes or other wastes within it take such steps as are necessary
to prevent pollution due to hazardous wastes and other wastes
arising from such management and, if such pollution occurs, to
minimize the consequences thereof for human health and the
environment;
(d) Ensure that the trans-boundary movement of hazardous wastes
and other wastes is reduced to the minimum consistent with the
environmentally sound and efficient management of such wastes, and
is conducted in a manner which will protect human health and the
environment against the adverse effects which may result from such
movement;
(e) Not allow the export of hazardous wastes or other wastes to
a State or group of States belonging to an economic and/or
political integration organization that are Parties, particularly
developing countries, which have prohibited by their legislation
all imports, or if it has reason to believe that the wastes in
question will not be managed in an environmentally sound manner,
according to criteria to be decided on by the Parties at their
first meeting;
(f) Require that information about a proposed trans-boundary
movement of hazardous wastes and other wastes be provided to the
States concerned, according to Annex V A, to state clearly the
effects of the proposed movement on human health and the
environment;
(g) Prevent the import of hazardous wastes and other wastes if
it has reason to believe that the wastes in question will not be
managed in an environmentally sound manner;
(h) Co-operate in activities with other Parties and interested
organizations, directly and through the Secretariat, including the
dissemination of information on the trans-boundary movement of
hazardous wastes and other wastes, in order to improve the
environmentally sound management of such wastes and to achieve the
prevention of illegal traffic.
3. The Parties consider that illegal traffic in hazardous wastes
or other wastes is criminal.
4. Each Party shall take appropriate legal, administrative and
other measures to implement and enforce the provisions of this
Convention, including measures to prevent and punish conduct in
contravention of the Convention.
5. A Party shall not permit hazardous wastes or other wastes to
be exported to a non-Party or to be imported from a non-Party.
6. The Parties agree not to allow the export of hazardous wastes
or other wastes for disposal within the area south of 60 South
latitude, whether or not such wastes are subject to trans-boundary
movement.7. Furthermore, each Party shall:
(a) Prohibit all persons under its national jurisdiction from
transporting or disposing of hazardous wastes or other wastes
unless such persons are authorized or allowed to perform such types
of operations;
(b) Require that hazardous wastes and other wastes that are to
be the subject of a trans-boundary movement be packaged, labelled,
and transported in conformity with generally accepted and
recognized international rules and standards in the field of
packaging, labeling, and transport, and that due account is taken
of relevant internationally recognized practices;
(c) Require that hazardous wastes and other wastes be
accompanied by a movement document from the point at which a
trans-boundary movement commences to the point of disposal.
8. Each Party shall require that hazardous wastes or other
wastes, to be exported, are managed in an environmentally sound
manner in the State of import or elsewhere. Technical guidelines
for the environmentally sound management of wastes subject to this
Convention shall be decided by the Parties at their first
meeting.
9. Parties shall take the appropriate measures to ensure that
the trans-boundary movement of hazardous wastes and other wastes
only be allowed if:
(a) The State of export does not have the technical capacity and
the necessary facilities, capacity or suitable disposal sites in
order to dispose of the wastes in question in an environmentally
sound and efficient manner; or
(b) The wastes in question are required as a raw material for
recycling or recovery industries in the State of import; or
(c) The trans-boundary movement in question is in accordance
with other criteria to be decided by the Parties, provided those
criteria do not differ from the objectives of this Convention.
10. The obligation under this Convention of States in which
hazardous wastes and other wastes are generated to require that
those wastes are managed in an environmentally sound manner may not
under any circumstances be transferred to the States of import or
transit.
11. Nothing in this Convention shall prevent a Party from
imposing additional requirements that are consistent with the
provisions of this Convention, and are in accordance with the rules
of international law, in order better to protect human health and
the environment.
12. Nothing in this Convention shall affect in any way the
sovereignty of States over their territorial sea established in
accordance with international law, and the sovereign rights and the
jurisdiction which States have in their exclusive economic zones
and their continental shelves in accordance with international law,
and the exercise by ships and aircraft of all States of
navigational rights and freedoms as provided for in international
law and as reflected in relevant international instruments.
13. Parties shall undertake to review periodically the
possibilities for the reduction of the amount and/or the pollution
potential of hazardous wastes and other wastes which are exported
to other States, in particular to developing countries.4.2
International Maritime Organization (IMO)
In December 2003, the IMO issued a document entitled Guidelines
on Ship Recycling. Developed as best practice guidelines and to
give advice to all stakeholders in the recycling process, including
administrators of shipbuilding and maritime equipment, supplying
countries, flag, and port and recycling states, as well as inter
governmental organizations and commercial bodies such as
ship-owners, repairers and recycling yards.
The Guidelines suggest practical measures for all stages of the
ship recycling process including:
New ship and equipment design, in particular to minimize the use
to hazardous substances and waste generation as well as to
facilitate recycling and the removal of hazardous materials;
Preparation of a Green Passport for new and existing ships;
Selection of a recycling facility and preparation of a ship for
recycling including a ship Recycling Plan and;
Roles for primary stakeholders including flag, port and
recycling states, the Basel Convention, the ILO and the shipping
industry.
The Guidelines seek to encourage recycling as the best means of
ship disposal while providing guidance in preparing ships for
recycling. In general, the Guidelines take the view that the
responsibility for environment and worker protection in ship
recycling facilities must rest with the recycling facility itself
and with the regulatory authorities of the country in which it
operates. Nevertheless, it is noted that ship owners and other
stakeholders also have a responsibility to address the issues
involved.
4.3 International Labour Organization (ILO)The ILO unanimously
endorsed for publication by the Governing Body at its 289th session
(March 2004) a set of criteria to govern the disposal and recycling
of ships. The criteria is outlined in Safety and Health in Ship
breaking: Guidelines for Asian Countries and Turkey, a document
directed at those who have responsibility for occupational safety
and health in ship breaking operations, including ship breaking
employers, workers, and authorities.
The Guidelines were drafted to contribute to:
The protection of ship breaking workers from workplace hazards
and the elimination of work-related injuries, diseases and
deaths.
Assisting and facilitating the improved management of
occupational safety and health issues in the workplace.
The ILO Guidelines are not legally binding, nor are they
intended to replace national laws, regulations or accepted
standards. They are intended as guidance in establishing effective
national systems, procedures, and regulations to govern ship
breaking, particularly in those regions where such regulations are
under development or are nonexistent.
The Guidelines suggest a national framework defining the general
responsibilities and rights for employers, workers and regulatory
authorities in ship breaking. In addition, the Guidelines provide
recommendations on safe ship breaking operations including the
management of hazardous substances, protection and preventative
measures for workers against hazards and suggestions for a
competency based training program.
The ILO approach is to facilitate step-by-step improvements to
the practice of dismantling ships on beaches. The Guidelines
suggest that this can be achieved by:
Ensuring there is an inventory of hazardous materials on
board;
Decontamination and gas-freeing;
Planning for safe demolition;
Recycling and;
4.4 United Nations Commission on Human Rights
The United Nations Commission on Human Rights under the
economic, social and cultural rights agenda of ECOSOC has monitored
effects on the illicit movement and dumping of toxic and dangerous
products and wastes by corporations and enterprises from
industrialized countries in developing countries that do not have
the national capacity to deal with them in an environmentally sound
manner. This constitutes a serious threat to the human rights, to
life, good health and a sound environment for everyone. 5. Present
Scenario of Safety Measures in the ShipyardsBangladesh as an
agrarian society is not used to hazardous work like the breaking of
ships. Our country and the people are not ready to deal with the
hazards. The only work hazard our country always had was that you
might cut your finger if you were digging the field. Workers at the
ship breaking yards think that it is common that if you cut a ship
it might blast and you die. Sometimes now we observe that if a ship
is gas free it is safer to cut the ship. However, it regularly
happens that blasts take place and that bodies are thrown from the
ships and people lose their legs or their hands. We do not know how
many people die from blasts in the ship breaking yards. It is heard
that almost every day a labour dies. It is natural, it belongs to
the job. It is not new that a labour dies. The workers have adapted
it as their normal lifestyleThe working conditions at the ship
breaking yards of Chittagong are extremely poor. In order to secure
the vessels, the ship breakers pay the best rates to the
ship-owners whilst paying their workers the lowest rates possible
and with complete disregard for worker safety. Ship breaking
carries a very real risk to life. By any standards, the demolition
of ships is a dirty and dangerous occupation. The hazards related
with ship breaking broadly fall into two categories: intoxication
by dangerous substances and accidents on the plots. Explosions of
leftover gas and fumes in the tanks are the prime cause of
accidents in the yards. Another major cause of accidents is workers
falling from the ships (which are up to 70 m high) as they are
working with no safety harness. Other sources of accidents include
workers being crushed by falling steel beams and plates and
electric shocks.
Though they have chosen this hazardous job only to earn their
bread, many of them are not physically fit for such hard work.
Therefore, incidents of various types of accidents and casualties
are rampant in the ship-breaking yards, but there is no hospital in
that industrial area. The labourers, local people and environment
and human rights activists have long been demanding a hospital in
the area, but no response from anyone yet. If any worker is injured
or if anyone falls sick, the patient is taken to Chittagong Medical
College Hospital, which is 30 kilometres away from the
ship-breaking yards6 .Workers are not aware of hazards to which
they are exposed. The overwhelming majority of workers wear no
protective gear and many of them work barefoot. There is hardly any
testing system for the use of cranes, lifting machinery or a
motorized pulley. The yards re-use ropes and chains recovered from
the broken ships without testing and examining their strength.
There is no marking system of loading capacity of the chains of
cranes and other lifting machineries.
Consequently, workers suffer from lung problems which cause
temporary loss of working capacity. The hatches and pockets of
vessel may contain explosive or inflammable gases. The cutters, if
they understand from experience, drill small holes in order to
release gases or fumes. This still however, often cause severe
explosions.
Gas cutters and their helpers, cut steel plates almost around
the clock without eye protection. This leaves their eyes vulnerable
to effects of welding. They do not wear a uniform and most don't
have access to gloves and boots. Those that are unskilled carry
truckable pieces of iron sheets on their shoulders and there are no
weight limits to the sheets they carry. Usually, these workers
carry weights far above the limit prescribed in the Factories Act
and Factories Rules.
The beaches are full with chemicals and toxic substances, small
pieces of pointed and sharp iron splinters causing injuries.
Workers enter into the areas without wearing or using any
protective equipment. Occupational health and safety is clearly not
a priority for the owners and as for the workers their desperate
need to find employment to support their families means that their
livelihoods take precedence over their lives.Although scrapping
obsolete ships is an emerging sector and major source of raw iron
supplies to the steel re-rolling mills in the region, the human
causalities in these ship-breaking yards are on the sharp rise
because of scrapping ships in an unscientific way and for lack of
minimum safety measures.
According to rights groups, the owners of these ship-breaking
yards are least bothered about the rights of workers, healthy
working environment, procuring modern equipment and ensuring
measures to protect the environment because there is no national
policy in this regard.
In the last couple of years there has been an increasing rate of
accidents in the ship breaking industry. The following table
illustrates some data regarding this.Table 1: Fatal Incidents
record from 1998-2010
YearNumber of Fatal AccidentsNumber of DeathsNumber of
Injuries
19980204
19990212
20000320
20010101
20020103
20030000
20040103
2005030701
2006091001
2007080806
2008161505
2009142313
Upto May 201022
Total in 11 years6210826
Source: BELA
In Bangladesh, the provisions of the Factories Act and
occupational safety measures are not taken into consideration in
ship breaking. The testing of cranes, lifting gear and motorized
pulleys is rarely carried out. The yards re-use ropes and chains
recovered from scrapped ships without any inspection for soundness
or strength. There is no system for marking the loading capacity of
crane chains and other lifting equipment. Gas cutters and their
helpers cut steel plates without eye protection, protective
clothing, gloves or boots. Unskilled workers carry pieces of iron
sheet on their shoulders; employers seem unaware of the legal load
limit for workers prescribed in the Factories Act and Factories
Rules. A number of fatal incidents have occurred in the past as a
result of fires, explosions and heavy metal plates falling from the
upper part of the ships. Minor fires occur frequently and are
controlled by spraying water and sand. Two major accidents were
reported in 1998: in one a supervisory staff member was killed by a
heavy steel sheet falling from the upper deck of a vessel, and in
another, a gas cutter died as a result of an explosion. Recently,
in another major accident, a 16,000-tonnes ship exploded in the
ship-breaking yard of Brothers Associates, near Sitakunda,
discharging poisonous gases. The press reported one dead, 50
missing, and 22 hospitalized6. Explosions due to gas build-up and
falling steel are among the dangers workers face, along with other
chemical perils that have not been dealt with effectively. Most
other countries have banned work on raw, untreated tankers. In
India, for example, the Gujarat Pollution Control Board monitors
the removal of toxic and hazardous material from foreign vessels
before dismantling. Bangladesh remains one of few countries without
regulation of the industry by government departments7.5.1
Government Directed to Ensure Workers Safety on Ship Breaking
Yards
The High Court, on 7 January 2008, directed the Government to
explain within three weeks why it would not be directed to take
measures to protect workers employed in ship breaking yards, and to
compensate adequately the families of such workers killed or
injured at work. It also directed the authorities to submit are
port to the Court within three months, with information on (i) the
number of deaths or injuries of workers to date in the yards(ii)
The reasons for the causalities (iii) The amounts of compensation
given to the families of the dead and injured workers, and (iv) the
measures taken by the authorities to prevent such incidents in the
ship breaking industry. Although compensation is legally due in the
case of all workplace deaths, the relevant law is observed more
often in its breach. For example, OSHEs investigations revealed
that out of the 70 cases that that they had monitored between June
2007 to July 2008, in only one case had the employer deposited the
sum of Taka100,000 in Court as required. Informal arrangements did
however result in workers receiving some level of compensation: 33
workers received full compensation as per law, 14 got more than
50,000 but less than actual taka 100,000 and in 13 matters
employers paid less than taka 50,000.76. The Existing Practice of
Compensation
6.1 The formal Procedure
6.1.1 Right to compensation
Not all the cases that were investigated allowed a dependent
family an actual legal right to compensation under the BLA. In
almost one fifth of the investigations, the dependent family had no
right to compensation.
Four of the investigations found that the death was not in fact
work-related.
Five of the investigations involved a government body which was
the employer, and as a result there was no right to compensation
under the BLA, though the family would usually, in such cases,
receive compensation under a scheme set up by the Government
office.
Four of the investigations involved the death of a worker who
was not involved ina work activity as set out in schedule 4 of the
BLA 2006.
One case involved a farm which had less than 10 workers
employed.
Two of the investigations involved deaths that were reported in
newspapers but which could not be identified during the
investigation itselfPrior to 2006, the law setting out the
entitlement of dependent families (and injured workers) to receive
compensation from their employers following death or injury in the
course of their employment was set out in the Workmens Compensation
Act1923. The law on compensation entitlement is now set out in
chapter 12 of the BLA2006 and remains very similar, in most
respects to the previous law. Under the current (and previous) law,
only workers involved in specific kinds of work activities (set out
in Schedule 4 of the 2006 Act) can receive compensation. Whilst
these categories do include most kinds of work activities there are
some significant categories of employment that are excluded; for
example, workers involved in loading and unloading activities
outside a factory premises, and those involved in earth cutting or
breaking up bricks (when not directly linked to a construction of a
building or road) are exempt. It should be noted, however, that it
is not necessary for a worker to have had any formal written
contract with an employer to be able to receive compensation. An
oral agreement is sufficient.The obligation to pay compensation is
placed primarily upon the direct employer of the worker.
However, if the employer of the worker(who has died) was himself
contracted to carry out work by another individual or organization
a factory owner or a developer, for example this main contractor
may also have an equal obligation (along with the employer) to pay
compensation.21 In order for the main contractor to have such an
obligation to pay (in circumstances where they are not in fact the
actual employer),the activity that resulted in the death (or
injury) must (a) be an ordinary activity of the main contractor;
and (b) have taken place in premises which is under the control of
the owner/developer or where he has undertaken work in the past.
This will be the situation on many construction sites where
developers hire labour contractors to do the construction work, and
the workers are employed by the labour contractors.
Where a death has taken place, the employer (or the main
contractor, where appropriate) must deposit Taka one lakh in the
Labour Court and it is then the responsibility of the Court to
distribute this money to the deceased workersdependents8. Providing
money out of court to the dependents is not lawful. This is
no-fault compensation so it is not necessary for the worker to
prove any fault on the part of the employer or main contactor. When
the employer has not deposited the money to the court, the Labour
Court itself can, on the basis of information it has received about
a death, take its own steps to contact the employer about the need
to deposit the money9. 6.1.2 Compensation following Injuries
When an injury has taken place, the employer (or main
contractor) has no responsibility to deposit money in the Labour
Court. Instead it is necessary for the worker and the employer to
try and come to a settlement. Only when this has not been
successful, can the worker petition the Labour Court. Where the
worker has received a permanent total disability s/he should
receive Taka 1.25lakh t, and in relation to other permanent partial
injuries, a percentage of this amount depending on the kind of
injury that has been suffered. However, in relation to workplace
injuries the employer has no obligation to pay any money if one of
the following circumstances takes place: the worker had drunk
alcohol; the worker had disobeyed an instruction from the employer
or the worker had removed a guard from a machine and it was this
that resulted in the injury.6.1 The Actual Scenario
The fact that the industry has categorically failed to maintain
the minimum level of labour protection and welfare as per the
labour laws is evident from the reports of ILO, UNDP, Det Norske
Veritas and Green Peace. According to a joint report of the Green
Peace and the International Federation of Human Rights Leagues
(FIDH), on an average one ship breaking worker dies at the yards in
Bangladesh every week and every day one worker gets injured.An
inquiry into the accidents suggests that in most cases they took
place due to explosions (indicates callous certification by the
Explosives Department) and fall of heavy metal plates on the
labourers. After each of the deaths, the ship breakers tried to
evade their legal responsibility of depositing taka one lakh as
compensation for the family of the deceased workers. They instead
opted to give a token amount to the families of the workers and got
them to sign on a legally untenable agreement stating that they had
received some money and did not hold any further legal claims. It
was only after the much delayed intervention from the Labour
Directorate that some of them have deposited the money very
recently although the death might have taken place in 200611.When
there is an injury some immediate treatment may be given but there
is no long term treatment for those who have a long term or
permanent injury. In terms of compensation, only a nominal amount
of compensation given and often only when there is public pressure.
When a worker becomes disabled by a major accident, he gets a
maximum of 10 to 15 thousand taka (1 USD=71 taka) and forced back
to his home district. In most cases a worker will only get
transportation costs to go back to their home district12.
When a worker is killed in an accident, the contractor, who is
responsible for the workers, will only pay the costs of sending the
body back to the victims family and arranging for their burial.
In the case of local workers from the area, if they die on the
job, their family receives more than 50,000 taka as compensation.
This is mainly due to the fact that the yard owners and contractors
cannot avoid the locals who yield some power and pressure them.
Prior to 2006, the labour laws in Bangladesh had a lot of
limitations. The Workers Compensation Act 1965, only 30,000 taka
was proposed for a 100% disable worker and 21,000 taka for dead
workers family. The recently passed Labour Law Act 2006 now
stipulates that a 100% disabled worker will receive 100,000
taka10.However, there is a common practice of employers or main
contractors providing some money to the dependent family (sometimes
in cases where there was no legal requirement to provide any money.
In the case of fourteen deaths we were unable to ascertain what
sum, if any, had been provided to the bereaved family. The
following table illustrates some examples13:
Table 2: Payment to the affected workersTaka Range
No. of cases
Nothing7
< 10,000 taka18
10,001 20,0006
20,001 30,00013
31,001 40,00010
40,001 50,00021
50,001 60,0003
60,001 70,0000
71,001 80,0002
80,001 90,0002
90,001 99,0000
100,000 and more21
Not known14
Source: Investigations into Workplace Deaths in Bangladesh; p
8In a survey on 100 cases 75 of the families received less than
Taka 50,000. In 21 cases however the family received the full Taka
lakh or more. Included in the amount was money that may have been
given for funeral expenses or for transporting the body.
7. Role of International Players
In recent years ship breakers, governments and other
stakeholders involved have agreed that there is a problem and
showed willingness to change the sad reality and move forward to
the protection of the workers and environment. As a result, a
number of actions have taken place.
The UNEP has started working on the development of guidelines
for the environmentally sound management of ship dismantling. The
IMO is currently working towards guidelines on ship-recycling with
the intention of adopting these. In India, for example, we see
ship-breakers and government agencies, notably the Gujarat Maritime
Board, taking steps to improve conditions at scrapping yards. Also
in China, ship-breakers and government show great willingness to
continue improving conditions.
The shipping industry, under the co-ordination of ICS, developed
a Code of Practice on the preparation of ships before scrapping.
This Code was published in 2003. BIMCO recently finished a model
scrap contract for vessels being sold for demolition - called
Demolishcon which takes into account the criteria contained in the
industrys code.
We have seen the International Labour Organisation take up its
responsibility of protecting labour rights and improving working
conditions, by initiating the development of safe work protocols
for the ship breaking industry.
Several countries have acted on the illegal trade of hazardous
materials onboard ships (For example, the Netherlands detained the
chemical tanker Sandrien. Based on the Basel regime. Turkey refused
the Sea Beirut that tested positive for the presence of asbestos.
Based on the Basel regime. And yesterday Belgium agreed to make
sure that the Greek owned car carrier Silver Ray has to be cleaned
before leaving for scrapping on an Asian beach. Based on the Basel
regime.People are pleased with these and other initiatives and
developments but this is not enough to really change the situation
at the Asian beaches where scrapping is taking place. The reality
of today is that every day ships containing asbestos, PCBs and
residues sail towards the beaches and yards in Asia to be scrapped
under miserable conditions.There is a lot of competition between
the ship-breaking countries and a lot of money to be earned for
ship owners. With the absence of a level playing field(where the
same rules apply to every country and every ship-owner) a ship
breaking country can hardly afford to improve conditions
drastically and the majority of ship-owners will choose for the
cheapest option. Ship-breaking countries will lose business and the
business will move to other even less regulated countries.
8. Recommendations
The shipping industry, in particular the owners and operators of
ships, should accept the chain of responsibility for the safe and
clean dismantling of their ships. And they should be held
accountable for the environmental and health damage caused by
sending toxic ships to Asian beaches.
To achieve this, it is necessary that:
1. New ships are designed and built without hazardous materials
and that an inventory of hazardous materials should be kept during
the operational life of a ship. Also existing ships should be made
gradually cleaner by replacing hazardous materials with cleaner
alternatives.2. Ships are decontaminated before exporting to Asia.
Or as a Bangladesh worker formulated it: from the standpoint of
business it is the responsibility of the seller to give a toxic
free commodity to the customer/consumer.3. There is a fully
transparent operation. That information is available and that the
responsible company and owners are known. Shipping companies should
no longer be able hide behind middlemen, brokers etc.4. The
identification of a project programme Sustainable ship
decommissioning for disposal and recycling is recommended. The
programme should not only have an overall objective and vision but
also a local reference and include action and measurement of
implementation schemes.5. All persons should wear safety helmets or
hard hats to protect the head from injury
6. Clear or dark goggles or face shield should be worn during
welding, flame cutting or other hazardous work
7. Appropriate gloves should be given for protection from the
particular hazard of the work, such as leather gloves are generally
better for handling rough or sharp objects, heat-resistant gloves
for handling hot objects, and rubber, synthetic or PVC gloves for
handling acids, alkalis, various types of oils, solvents and
chemicals
8. Waterproof clothing and head coverings when working in
adverse weather conditions
9. Discharge gases from the chamber and cut the section using
torches and mechanical cutter
10. Introduce craning system for moving steel beam and large
iron structure11. Government must concentrate on proper
implementation of compensation policies mentioned in the labour law
20069. ConclusionIf I go to work I will die alone, but If I dont go
to work my whole family will die this is what Mr. Shariful Haque, a
cutter man of Golden Shipping Yard in Chittagong, expressed to a
journalist14. It reflects what lies beneath the glitters of pennies
in the ship breaking industry. Since its inception this industry
has been generating employment for numerous people but at the same
time causing several problems for them as well. With such a high
opportunity cost things cannot go for long. People from all walks
of life are now showing deep concern about the safety measures and
other relative issues of the workers. If the government takes stern
actions against the odds that may deter the intensity of
irregularities. But it is the shipyard owners who can play a
significant part to improve the condition. With just a little bit
of consideration for workers can make the shipyard a much better
place to work and in the global market it will enhance the value of
Bangladeshi ship breaking industry.References
1. Website, YPSA (Young Power in Social Action),Workers in ship
breaking industries: A base line survey of Chittagong, Bangladesh,
Young Power in Social Action,
2. Occupational Health Hazards of Ship Scrapping Workers at
Chittagong Coastal Zone, Bangladesh
By M. Shahadat Hossain* , Sayedur R. Chowdhury , S. M. Abdul
Jabbar[b],S.M. Saifullah and M. Ataur Rahman
3. Greenpeace, Playing hide and seek: How the shipping industry,
protected by flags of convenience, dumps toxic waste on ship
breaking beaches, Greenpeace, Netherlands, 2003; 29
4. YPSA (Young Power in Social Action),Workers in ship breaking
industries: A base line survey of Chittagong, Bangladesh, Young
Power in Social Action, Chittagong, 2005; 79
5. DNV (DET NORSKE VERITAS), Decommissioning of ships -
environ-mental standards: ship-breaking practices/on site
assessment Bangladesh, Chittagong. Report No. 2000-3158,DNV RN 590,
Norway, 2000.
5. Chittagong: 500,000 ship-breaking workers face health hazards
everyday; Fatalities in ship-breaking yards on alarming rise;
www.thedailystar.net
6. IS THERE A DECENT WAYTO BREAK UP SHIPS? By Paul J. Bailey;
International Labour Organization (ILO), Geneva7. Steel Beach: Ship
breaking in Bangladesh; SIGNALS 82 MarchMay 20088. Section 155(1)
and 151(1) and Schedule V. 9. Section 158, Bangladesh Labour Act
2006 10. Section 150(8), BLA 2006
11. The Daily Star; Law and Order; July 26, 2008
12. Website, YPSA (Young Power in Social Action), Workers in
ship breaking industries: A base line survey of Chittagong,
Bangladesh, Young Power in Social Action13. Investigations into
Workplace Deaths in Bangladesh: Compensation, Accountability and
Legal Reform; A Preliminary Report; p8
14. The daily Prothom Alo, 29-05-2010, p5
