23 May 2003– Take yourself a morning walk down Gadani beach in Pakistan sometime. You should be able to watch the clear water lapping against miles and miles of golden sandy beach. You should be able to hear the sound of seabirds squawking with pleasure in the early morning sunshine.

What you would in fact see and hear would be the cacophonous din of hundreds of small wiry bodies attacking the rusted hulks of ships. The beach is covered in black bunker fuel and the only noise you can hear is the clanging of hammers on metal.

This is shipbreaking in the 21st century. And a very dangerous and environmentally unfriendly business it is. Six people undertaking this activity on the Indian breaking beaches of Alang died this week after an enormous explosion (see page 20). Alang was rocked by a similar blast just over a month ago.

Vessels run up onto these shores for demolition are meant to be free of contaminants and dangerous chemicals but those who undertake the breaking have little idea what is on board. Many of the vessels are 30 years old, riddled with asbestos, coated in toxic paints and leaking bunkers or other petroleum products. It is another blot on the maritime scene. The question is: Whose blot? and what should be done? Shipowners have always argued that shipbreaking is a separate industry like shipbuilding -- nothing to do with them.

No one who buys a car (so goes the argument) has to worry too much about what happens after he sells it on. Not a very dependable analogy, that, since the European Commission is now looking at making the automobile manufacturers themselves responsible for end-of-life recycling.

The International Maritime Organisation (IMO) -- sleepy as always -- has woken up talking. It wants a voluntary code to cover demolition.

The International Chamber of Shipping is also on the case because blue-chip shipowners have realised they have a potential embarrassment on their hands. Greenpeace and other environmental activists have pushed in the door at complacency cottage and begun to take direct action to embarrass owners and operators into action.

They appear to be succeeding. The initiative highlighted by TradeWinds journalist Geoff Garfield last week shows Dutch company Stichting Tanker Ontmanteling Platform (Stop) planning a "green" scrapping yard in the Netherlands that could see vessels dismantled with zero pollution.

It is supposedly all going to take place in a covered drydock capable of taking ships of 30,000 dwt. It sounds a great idea, which could represent the future of demolition. It is also said to have the support of P&O Nedlloyd, which has felt the hot breath of Greenpeace on the back of its neck. It does not necessarily make sense for such work to be undertaken in the West, however.

There is a huge market for recycled ship parts in the steel-rolling mills of Asia. Such "green" demolition schemes could be set up there.

Indeed, P&O has been working at this in China. Peter Buijs at Stop insists the IMO guidelines will drive old-style Asian yards out of business and his yard will survive on its commercial merits. This is wishful thinking. The IMO will do only a little to stamp out the dangerous practices but they will at least start the ball rolling.

Some in the shipping industry have been known to moan about the media only reporting the bad things. If owners threw their weight behind green scrapping rather than waiting for the regulatory noose to tighten, they would have the chance to win some media brownie points for that at least.