The current issue of Foreign Policy magazine has a spectacular photo essay by Brendan Corr on shipbreaking in Bangladesh: huge ships driven at full speed onto the beach at high tide, armies of workers trudging out to strip them with bare hands. The physical danger is intense; the health and environmental consequences are potentially dire, as these tankers and container vessels and cruise liners are loaded with asbestos and other contaminants.
In Bangladesh, according to the text, shipbreaking employs 200,000 people. Amazingly, it yields 80 percent of Bangladesh’s steel production. So this massive and hazardous recycling effort generates a vital input into the economy. You can provide your own comment about macroeconomic trade-offs.
Shipbreaking has been a major activity in South Asia for years now; here is a 2000 article by uber-reporter William Langewiesche on the Alang beach in Gujarat, which favorable tidal conditions have turned into a surreal junkyard of corroding behemoths. Now, though, it seems that Chittagong has outflanked Alang with even cheaper labor.
This week, the Clemenceau, once France’s biggest aircraft carrier, was forced to break its journey to Gujarat after legal challenges in both countries. President Chirac has now ordered the Clemenceau back home.
Meanwhile the 315 meter-long cruiseship France, is reported to be on its way to Chittagong though the Bangladesh government has demanded it be decontaminated first. Now called Lady Blue, the ship is registered in the Bahamas by a Norwegian company owned by a Malaysian company owned by a Hong Kong company. This opaqueness, standard in the shipping industry, makes accountability hard to enforce.
The Langewiesche article was accompanied by some amazing photos by Selgado. While I couldn’t find those on line, these photos should give you a taste.
NPR did a great/sad story on this this morning. It was about India and the the Clemenceau.
India Takes on Hazardous Breakdowns of Foreign Ships
Wow,that is an amazing story/photo essay. My mind is just buzzing with the info! I am to google it to death.
From the photo-essay: Conditions in the shipyards are dangerous. Many workers are barefoot and without gloves, carefully avoiding razor-sharp metal, hot steel, and pollutants.
This is a profitable industry. The Government of Bangladesh (or whoever has jurisdiction on this area/issue) needs to enact/enforce basic health and safety laws. There is no reason why the workers have to do this work without propet shoes/gloves and other protective gear.
Greenpeace India has a huge campaign against shipbreaking- the turning away of the Clemenceau was a big success for that campaign. You can check out the Greenpeace India website for more on the campaigns, and how you can take action.
May I suggest one of my favourite photographers – Sebastiao Salgado. His work with the shipbreakers in Bangladesh is amazing. I say “with” as opposed to “of” as he’s known for living with his subjects, getting to know them so well that they forget he’s there – hence he gets candid shots. I can’t find that many of his Bangladesh pics online, but…
Bangladesh pics: http://www.terra.com.br/sebastiaosalgado/e_op1/e07w.html http://www.hackelbury.co.uk/artists/salgado/salgado_pic10.html
A collection of his best, including work from India:
Which includes my favourite.
Thanks Sid, this is fascinating stuff! Most interesting thing I’ve read all week. The conditions the laborers work in look horrendous. It’s mind-boggling to think that organized scavenging like this would provide the bulk of Bangladesh’s steel supply. Makes yme wonder if the salvaged steel is of high enough quality to re-use for construction purposes, after it’s been melted down.
Strangely enough, the pictures remind me of the deep sea scavengers that feast on what marine biologists refer to as “whale falls”. More here.
This is such a nice post Sid, I’ve just taken in the photo essay. One of the pics is very reminiscent of a Salgado one I was unable to find on the ‘net.
The mind boggles at the sheer scale of these operations. Legions of tiny humans swarm over these vast hulks of steel, slowly returning the metal to its original state. Awesome.
F_D_I_C, r.e. “There is no reason why the workers have to do this work without propet shoes/gloves and other protective gear”, I remember reading somewhere that it’s ‘cheaper’ for companies in the subcontinent to replace a worker than to buy the recommended protective gear. Cheaper because there’s always someone else willing, needing to take the job if one guy gets hurt. Or permanently disabled. Or worse.
If the laborers make 100 Rps a day (if even!) and the gear costs many times that, the employer is likely to say to hell with it. You see it on construction sites in India all the time – people walking bare foot or in worthless shoes, shlepping wet cement in buckets placed on their heads. Brutal stuff.
Indeed, there workers should be better equipped. In a country where private sector workers don’t even have a guaranteed minimum wage, where oh where will accountability for things like protective gear come from? The Clemenceau issue got a lot of coverage, partially because it’s a metaphor for how the minority global north continues to interact with the majority global south. But employer / worker issues within India, Bangladesh, et al seem to be a non-issue.
Someone please correct me if you think I am wrong on any of this (though with Sepiaites, perhaps I am inviting trouble…). And by the way, do any of the South Asian countries have the equivalent of OSHA?
Of the “200,000” people who voluntarily work in the ship teardown industry, how many should be put out of work to satisfy our qualms about their working conditions?
Regulating the industry is much different than taking away jobs from the “voluntary ship breakers.” The problem here with regulating is that it’s turned into an international issue where everyone is trying to play the blame game to cut their own costs (though I’m sure Ennis has the correct Econ term for this)- If these people are ‘volunteering’ to break ships, shouldn’t we make sure that they are doing it in a safe environment where they aren’t killed? Check here to see the dangers that shipbreakers experience in their industry…
Siddhartha,
Great job.
It is not ship – I have read India and other developing countries for many things – including old computers.
Sidd,
I meant:
It is not ships only –
There’s also the issue of externalities. Ships like these are fairly toxic and generate a strong impact on the environment.
ALM/ for_cartoons,
I wish safety rules for workers was applied in South Asia.
Just look at the construction workers in India – a large percentage are women
I’m almost ashamed to admit this, but I lived in Gujarat for 8 years and didn’t even know until I saw an episode on Discovery Times last year about Alang and the shipbreaking. What a different world.
Of the “200,000” people who voluntarily work in the ship teardown industry, how many should be put out of work to satisfy our qualms about their working conditions?
None. I am not suggesting that working conditions in Alang should mirror the working conditions in Detroit. I am talking about a de minimus investment in shoes, gloves and masks. We are not talking about day care facilities for working parents or temperature control. Surely, you are not suggesting that any minimal regulatory financial burden is unsustainable in this industry and will necessarily lead to a loss of jobs.
Actually, economically, it’s almost identical.
As MalluMolu points out, if the workers get 100 rupees / day = 25K rupees per yr = ~$500/yr (for now, assuming a “standard” 5 day work week)…
and if safety regulations cost, let’s say, $10/employee/yr… (buying each worker gloves, chem suits, shoes, training, whatever)
then achieving that level of safety will cost 1 in 50 ($10 / $500 = 2%) employees their jobs… which at this scale is 4000 folks.
My point isn’t that some greater level of safety isn’t a nice thing to do – it most certainly is… It just way too easy to sit here from the comforts of our clean, shiny offices and demand something of others when we have almost no idea of the costs involved…
I wish safety rules for workers was applied in South Asia.
Just look at the construction workers in India – a large percentage are women
Kush: Construction/development is a very lucrative business anywhere in the world, with extremely large profit margins. Providing shoes, helmets to these women is not going to destroy the real estate market. The government needs to enact laws which will make sure that the construction workers have basic protective gear.
then achieving that level of safety will cost 1 in 50 ($10 / $500 = 2%) employees their jobs… which at this scale is 4000 folks.
The ship contractors are already maxing out the productivity of every worker. An investment in shoes, gloves will not lead to any loss of employment. The average worker cant producy anymore than he already is so either the contractors will have to get less business, which makes no sense because the cost of equipment is per capita.
In reality, with basic protective gear, the workers will become more productive, the turnover rate will go down and all the savings which come from a low turnover rate, savings on time loss due to injuries should take care of the cost of the basic protective gear.
I’m sure there are laws & regulations. But unfortunately businessmen/bureaucrats in India just know their way around.
It might help to clarify that the ship breakers in Gujarat are fundamentally different from those in Bangladesh. The workers are unionized. The yards have been certified by Indian Registry of Shipping. Of course its dangerous, toxic work. But use of protective gear was slowly increasing mostly through pressure from the unions and the government. The developed countries (mostly Germany) are working with Greenpeace to introduce international regulations to require shipping companies to purchase breakdown services when the purchase the ships. This means that breakdowns will happen in the ship building yards instead of the lowest bidder. And where are most of the ship builder’s located? That’s right, Germany
… said the meatpacking industry before Upton Sinclair.
I’m sorry, only in my second quarter of econ- but where do the costs of people dying on the job fit in this? The cost of how bad the toxins are for the environment? The cost of medical care for these folks? Don’t people become more productive when they are safe?
I totally agree with you- the 1st world telling th third world mentality- I don’t see that issue with this- Greenpeace India is a locally run NGO, their campaigns are set by their people in India- the office is full of really great organizers, normal indians that got roped into doing environmental things because it affected them in their lives (kicked it their last spring)- Their shipbreaking campaign is really well done, they’ve done all the groundwork with the shipbreakers. It’s easy for us to sit in our “offices” and critique, but it’s also just as easy to support well researched for the people by the people campaigns as well. Go sign this petition already!!
Vinod – you’re missing out an important cost – the cost from turnover. Sure, this is low skilled labor, and there is a large pool of willing workers to take the next job.
BUT
This is dangerous work. And a new person is more likely to make a mistake than somebody with experience. A mistake can lead to an explosion, or less seriously, a reduction in the amount of salvageable material.
Working towards justice for these workers needs to happen beyond these (Indian and Bangladeshi) national borders. As mentioned before, there is financial cost to protecting workers. Even if one were to enact laws in India and/or Bangladesh to protect workers’ rights, the cost would be passed on to the consumer. The consumer will have the option to take their ships to ship-breakers without these special protections, and thus charge less. Effective reform would have to happen transnationally.
The saddest part is that the workers are now threatening a hunger strike to protest the fact that they won’t get to tear apart the poisonous ship:
The workers are afraid it will put them out of work, and the [b]Gujarat Shipbreakers Union[/b] is calling for protests against Greenpeace, and France.
My point isn’t that more safety isn’t a good thing. It’s that it’s not a cost free thing to the “enterprise”. As a result, it’s hard for us to weigh imaginary factors from a few thousand miles away and figure out HOW MUCH COST should be born. (rather than the simpler value proposition of SHOULD THERE BE COST?)
If this were true, then they’d already be doing it because then the benefits would be internalized by the corp.
If this were true, then they’d already be doing it because then the benefits would be internalized by the corp.
Which means that the individual workers – whom so many are trying so hard to save – consider the income more important than the imaginary risks. Some of them might be delusional about the risks. But I caution that some of us might be delusional about how important their income is.
Vinod:
To be “internalized by the corporation” there has to be a government enforcing rules, coercing the companies to comply with (currently) non-existing employee safety regulations. Prior to the creation of OSHA in the US, and the enforcement of the safety regs, there was no reason for US companies to care about their workers either.
This is analogous to ‘if this were true, Microsoft would already have shipped Windows 2011.’ There’s a learning-over-time axis here and also a level playing field advantage to uniform regulation where no individual company takes a greater hit up front (even though advantages accrue later).
My inner econ geek was probably coming out… “internalized by the corp” means that the relevant advantages are realized by the corp (in the form of higher productivity, lower cost, etc.) and thus the corp doesn’t need external reason to do it. The examples cited above were clearly cases where the precautions helped people work etter.
Protecting safety of the worker, however, is NOT always “internalized by the corp” — particularly if it REDUCES productivity (for ex., gloves might make you work slower?) – these are “external”. Hence, OSHA, etc.
Protecting safety of the worker, however, is NOT always “internalized by the corp” — particularly if it REDUCES productivity (for ex., gloves might make you work slower?) – these are “external”. Hence, OSHA, etc.
In general it just might be beneficial, though it may not be demonstrated in the quarterly report. Avoiding workplace injury compensation payments and (workplace) personal injury lawsuits, cost involved in replacement are some of the direct benefits and avoiding bad publicity is an indirect benefit.
In this case the unlimited supply of labor force and its abject poverty, that motivates it, conceals the benefit. I liked what I read in the comment # 22, so, maybe soon Bangladeshi ship breakers would make this benefit more visible to corps.
Even M$ invests in ergonomic keyboards, mouse pads with wrist supports etc. 😉
At the deep down lower level, all a Rs. 100/day earning worker cares about is his income. They want to be safe but more important is the money needed for bare necessity. For corps, its a great thing. Unless the labor is unionized, in a third world country, survival is their first choice. Over the recent times, with some NGO working things might have changed but I think there is still a long way from what we call here a ‘safe’ work environment.
Suvendra Dutta:
Can someone provide a source for this please? (that the workers in Gujarat are unionized, that the yards have been so certified) I’ve been looking and I can’t find anything… thanks