Shipbreaking
The issue of shipbreaking has been brought to the attention of IMO's Marine Environmental Protection Committee (MEPC) several times. Greenpeace actions have urged the IMO to work on this issue from 1998. In 2001 the IMO decided to concentrate on shipbreaking. The decision making process of this body, however, is very slow. Often it is dominated by Flag of Convenience (FOC) countries. Their first interest is to get high numbers of ships in their ship registry.

Gas-free
According to Greenpeace and Basel Action Network (BAN) the IMO should decide how to make ship owners responsible for their end-of-life vessels. As a matter of urgency and to save lives the IMO should make 'gas-free for hot works' certificates mandatory. These certificates should guarantee that oil and explosive gasses are being removed from the tanks prior to dismantling the ship. More than 2000 single-hull oil tankers will be sent for scrap in the coming years. If these ships are not properly made gas-free, they will cause a large number of injuries and casualties to shipbreaking yard employees.

Failure
December 2003 the IMO finally adopted its Guidelines on Ship recycling. But these guidelines fail to protect people and the environment from bad shipping practices, because they are only voluntary to the shipping industry. Furthermore the guidelines are contradictory to the Basel Convention. In the Basel Convention government authorities play an essential role. They are responsible for approving or disapproving the import and export of ships-for-scrap and they should guarantee the clean breaking of ships. But according to the IMO guidelines, ship owners are not obliged to notify any government authority on their plans. The Greenpeace report Playing Hide and Seek reveals what the shipping industry will do with voluntary guidelines are voluntary: massive neglection. In a submission Greenpeace and BAN advised the IMO on what measures the organization should take to meet with the obligations and principles of the Basel Convention.

Three UN organisations
The Basel Convention prohibits the export of hazardous waste from rich to poor countries. The 163 Basel parties decided in October 2004 that end-of-life vessels can be considered hazardous waste. Its signatories must control the export of ships under the terms of the Convention.
So two UN organizations - IMO en Basel Convention - strongly disagree on the issue of shipbreaking. IMO rejects the mandatory regime and strict environmental rules that the Basel Convention established. Furthermore there is a third UN organisation with competences on shipbreaking: the International Labour Organisation (ILO). In February 2005 the three UN organisations started a joint working group on ship scrapping in order to exchange views and experiences.

IMO blocks coordination
Greenpeace urges these three organisations to discuss their positions on shipbreaking. Unsolved legislative issues should be dealt with as soon as possible. The UN organizations should cooperate to realise a common mandatory regime for ships for scrap. February 2005 they finally joined in a special UN meeting. But the meeting was a total failure: the IMO delegates allied with the shipping industry held sway over the meeting and blocked coordination on existing international law and practical solutions. A real international solution for the problem of shipbreaking seems to be far away.

Ship Recycling Fund
During the special UN meeting Greenpeace released a new report entitled The Ship Recycling Fund. In this report Greenpeace introduced details of how an economic mechanism to promote clean and safe shipbreaking might work. Embracing the polluter pays and producer responsibility principles, it outlines the financial resources needed. It also demonstrates that the costs are manageable and a minor fraction (0,5%) in relation to the industry's total turnover. More information on this ship recycling fund can be found in the Greenpeace submissions to the IMO and the Basel Convention.

Single hull oil tankers
In 2010 some 2,200 single hull oil tankers will be removed from the waters due to regulations by the EU and the IMO. In December 2004 Greenpeace analysed in 'Destination unknown' the consequences of the global phase out of single hull oil tankers. The report reveals that the EU hardly knows which European tankers have to be removed, or when they should end their sailing life. Many ships that should be banned according to the regulations, can easily continue their sailing life. Rules do exist, but nobody enforces these rules: there is no proper follow-up. That's why Greenpeace urged the IMO in 2005 to come up with a clear list of the single hull oil tankers that have to be taken out of service in the coming years. It's the only way to ensure that governments can act in time and make sure that these tankers will be scrapped in a clean and safe way. But the IMO does not come up with such a list.

First step
In July 2005 the IMO finally agreed to create a new legally binding instrument - probably a new treaty - to deal with the scrapping of obsolete vessels. Though this clearly is a step forward, Greenpeace and BAN denounced the proposed treaty for providing provisions far weaker than the Basel Convention. The IMO delegates refused to make ship owners and governments responsible for the clean breaking of their ships. The burden of toxic waste is still being placed on developing countries. Furthermore the proposed treaty will not even be legally binding for at least 5 years and more likely 10 years. Meanwhile a massive flood of dirty single-hulled tankers is expected to be scrapped with almost no green shipbreaking capacity available.

Head in the sand
The shipping industry has turned to the IMO to rush through a new treaty in order to continue exploiting cheap labor and weak environmental regulations in developing countries. Ship it's no use denying the truth: the Basel Convention does have competence over old ships when they reach end-of-life. Sooner or later the IMO has to recognise this. In her Council conclusions of 24 June 2005 the EU explicitly supported this point of view: 'The Council decides to invite, through the appropriate channels, the International Maritime Organization to establish mandatory requirements for a ship reporting system, that ensure an equivalent level of control as established under the Basel Convention.' In February 2006 negotiations for this new legally binding instrument were still ongoing.

Read more:
IMO Guidelines on Shipbreaking
Greenpeace submissions to the IMO
Conflicts between IMO and Basel Convention

Joint ILO/IMO/BC working group on ship scrapping