Term Paper on

Safety Procedure and Compensation

in the Ship Breaking Industry of
Bangladesh

Term 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 DHAKA

May 30, 2010

Mr. Shakil Huda

Professor
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 Bangladesh

I 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

Acknowledgments
First, 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 industry
3. Labour Law 2006: Rules Regarding Safety and Compensation
4. 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 Shipyard
5.1 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 Table
Table 1: Fatal Accidents Record From 1998-2010
Table 2: Payment to the Affected Workers

Executive Summary
When 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 2006

1.3 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 Bangladesh

2.1 History
Ship-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.1
Ship 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 issues 2. 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 2006

The 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 2 nd 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 2 nd 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 2 nd
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 transboundary 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 transboundary 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 workrelated 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 Shipyards

Bangladesh 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 lifestyle
The 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

Year

Number of Fatal Accidents

Number of
Deaths

1998

02

04

1999

02

12

2000

03

20

2001

01

01

2002

01

03

2003

00

00

2004

01

03

2005

03

07

01

2006

09

10

01

2007

08

08

06

2008

16

15

05

2009

14

23

13

Upto May 2010

Total in 11 years

62

108

Source: BELA

Number of Injuries

26

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 hospitalized 6.

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 50,000.7

6. 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 itself
Prior 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 examples 13:
Table 2: Payment to the affected workers

Taka Range

No. of cases

Nothing

< 10,000 taka

18

10,001 20,000

20,001 30,000

13

31,001 40,000

10

40,001 50,000

21

50,001 60,000

60,001 70,000

71,001 80,000

80,001 90,000

90,001 99,000

100,000 and more

21

Not known

14

Source: Investigations into Workplace Deaths in Bangladesh; p 8

In 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. Shipbreaking 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 structure
11. Government must concentrate on proper implementation of compensation policies
mentioned in the labour law 2006

9. Conclusion
If 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 journalist 14.
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), Geneva
7. Steel Beach: Ship breaking in Bangladesh; SIGNALS 82 MarchMay 2008
8. 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
Action
13. Investigations into Workplace Deaths in Bangladesh:
Accountability and Legal Reform; A Preliminary Report; p8
14. The daily Prothom Alo, 29-05-2010, p5

Compensation,