This presentation is mainly related to the human rights issues associated with the ship breaking industry.

1. Human Right Issues

3. Stakeholders
 Industry
 Labors, close to 40,000
 Gujrat state
 Communities living around
 Bangladesh and Pakistan
 Supreme Court of India
 NGOs

4. A Study By Greenpeace towards
violating human rights
 The ship-breaking industry was highly polluted and hazardous for
workers and communities living around Alang
 Presence of heavy metals ,dangerous levels of organotins and
polyaromatic hydrocarbons causing cancer
 Lack of safeguards in handling hazardous material causing cancer
in every fourth worker
 Workers are paid less and their lives are put in danger knowingly
 Many workers dying because of lack of infrastructure to
decontaminate ships in safe
 The dismantling of every vessel and workmen are hardly equipped
to handle such toxic material

5. Petition filed in Supreme Court
 A petition was filed against the import of hazardous wastes by The
Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Natural
Resource Policy (RFSTNRP) in 1995
 The petition provided that the import of hazardous/toxic wastes
endangering the environment and life of the people of India is
unconstitutional
 The HPC reported high volume of solid wastes, including radioactive
matter, asbestos, insulation and gases such as ammonia, CFC and
inflammable gas hazards.

6. Dismantling Decision of
Supreme Court
 “In order to achieve sustainable development environmental
protection shall constitute an integral part of the development
process and cannot be considered in isolation from it…the ship
breaking operation cannot be permitted to be continued without
strictly adhering to all precautionary principles”
 A ship must not contain hazardous waste or radioactive substances
on board
 Ships should be properly decontaminated by the owner prior to
dismantling/breaking

7. Dismantling of Blue Lady –
A Human Rights Perspective
 “Blue Lady” ex SS Norway was a passenger liner built in France in
1961. It was a steam turbine driven vessel with a power and rating
of 30,000 KW and 40,760 HP. A luxurious vessel during its golden
period.
 Blue Lady beached off the Alang coast in August 2006
 RFSTNRP filed a PIL against the hazardous dismantling of Blue Lady
in Alang port

8.  SC constituted a Committee of Technical Experts
(CTE) to submit a report on the said aspects
 SC charged the CTE were to examine –
 A) Whether pre-conditions for dismantling have been complied
with;
 B) Whether 80% of the asbestos is reusable
 C) What steps have been taken to control the environmental
impact of asbestos dust generated in the process of dismantling
of “Blue Lady”

9. CTE Report
 85 Percent asbestos is reusable (wall partitions, ceilings, roofings etc.)
 Atomic Energy Regulatory Board certified the Blue Lady no longer
contained any radioactive material onboard the ship
 Dismantling would generate 41,000 MT of steel
 The project would generate employment for 700 workers
 Report was lacking in scientific rigor and makes a mockery of
appropriate public policy which should always be aimed to maximize
worker and environmental production
 Appears to reveal industry-governmental collusion at the expense of
public welfare
 1200 tons of asbestos(significant being non-reusable)
 Superficial report negligent of ship-breaking hazard present within
structure of vessel
 CTE does not give any proof that Alang possesses acceptable
destruction technology for asbestos removal and disposal of hazardous
waste
NGO
Criticism
of
Report

10.  SC accepted the Report of CTE which approved the Dismantling Plan and Recycling
Management Plan and recommended grant of permission for dismantling the “Blue
Lady” at Alang submitted by the Recycler – M/s Priya Blue Industries Pvt. Ltd.
 SC observed that dismantling will help the development of the Indian Economy. The
court diluted the highly probable negative impacts by applying the concept of
sustainable development in such a way that it should respect the principle of
proportionality based on the concept of balance of interest.
 This view of the SC is in direct conflict and contradiction with the true meaning of
sustainable development – protecting intergenerational and intragenerational equity. It
also violated the 2003 decision of the SC

11. THANK YOU