The project aims to reassess the current practice of ship recycling in South Asia (Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan).

The objectives of the project are as follows:

1) To conduct a comparative study across three ship recycling countries in South Asia (Bangladesh, India and Pakistan).

2) To assess the significant health hazards and risks to workers due to ship recycling activities in South Asia.

3) To study the harmful effects on the environment brought by ship recycling in South Asia.

4) To draw an objective conclusion and suggest possible solutions for more sustainable ship recycling activities in South Asia.

In 2010, Demaria [3] conducted a qualitative study to observe the waste disposal activities of the ship recycling industry in the Indian subcontinent countries. He found that waste (by-products) from the ship-breaking process was very harmful to the environment and not well treated. The main substances contaminating the environment are also identified in his study: oil, asbestos, heavy metals and other toxic materials (PAH, PVC, and PCB). Furthermore, a quantitative analysis to evaluate the environmental impact of the ship recycling industry performed by [1] also produced similar results. By collecting water samples from a yard in Chittagong, Bangladesh, and testing them in a research lab, they discovered that metals and oil polluted the water.

Apart from the environment, ship recycling activities in Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan also jeopardise the workers’ health. In 2001, Andersen [4] identified that the industry’s practices in those countries harmed the workers working on the site (health and safety issues). Various risky tasks include removing oil and fuel from ships, disposing of paint waste, and cutting metal components (ships’ bodies). These activities are indeed deadly and were classified as sources of potential hazards related to health and safety problems by Mishra and Mukherjee in 2009 [5]. Moreover, Andersen [4] also listed four main factors which lead to an unsafe working environment: insufficient training for workers, lack of proper technical protocol, lack of personal protection equipment, and inadequate resources.

In 2012, the investigation examining workers’ health and safety in the ship recycling industry was further developed by Zakaria et al. [6] through a statistical study, as shown in Figure 3[6].

Figure 3. Accident data in Bangladesh’s recycling yards.

Later on, in 2023, Mannan et al. [7] examined recent developments in key ship recycling nations, highlighting both opportunities and challenges faced by this industry. A strategic analysis using SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) methodology was also employed to analyse the ship recycling industry in South Asian countries.

In 2024, Malek [8] identified the primary sources of risks associated with ship breaking and recycling in Chittagong, Bangladesh. The provisions of existing laws and conventions about occupational safety were also compiled, and mechanisms for workers’ safety were suggested.

In the same year, using SWOT analysis, Günes et al. [9] performed a comparative study of the ship recycling process between Türkiye, Bangladesh, and India. This study compared and evaluated the present dismantling procedures and identified the best practices and areas that need development in these countries.

As described in the introduction, ship recycling activities generally can produce various hazardous waste materials that are dangerous to the environment if they are not treated well. In 2010, Demaria [3] identified that there are three treatment methods of waste disposal:

1) Decontamination before export: The ship owners will remove all hazardous materials before sending the ships to the breaking site.

2) Environmental sound management on site: After the “beaching” process, the hazardous materials are safely removed and discharged.

3) Dumping: The dangerous materials are freely disposed of into the surrounding environment.

Among those three items, dumping is the most dangerous method. In fact, this method has been widely used as a common practice in the yards of the Indian subcontinent. Demaria’s [3] study about shipbreaking in India and Hossain and Islam’s [10] research on the environmental impact of ship-breaking industries in Bangladesh supported this fact.

In his study, Demaria [3] reported that several kinds of freely discharged hazardous substances contaminate the environment: oil, bacteria, asbestos, heavy metals, and persistent organic pollutants. The same information is also specified in Hossain and Islam’s [10] research, in which a more detailed explanation is offered as follows:

1) Oil (composed of hydrocarbons and sulphur). Oil is spilled into the water during the ship-cutting process, harming the aquatic ecosystem.

2) Asbestos (a group of minerals naturally occurring as masses of long, silky fibres) is commonly used as an insulating, fireproof, soundproof, and thermal insulating material on ships. However, this mineral can pollute the air and potentially cause cancer in the workers who breathe it in.

3) Heavy metals (lead—Pb, mercury—Hg, cadmium—Cd, iron—Fe, Aluminium—Al, and Zinc—Zn). The above-listed heavy metals are toxic to humans and can cause various diseases, including vision and hearing impairment and damage to the kidneys, heart, and reproductive system.

4) Other toxic materials (PAH, PVC, and PCB). All of these materials can pollute the water and air and have the potential to cause diverse, deadly effects on human health, such as various cancers, respiratory problems, reproductive impairment, and nervous attacks.

Demaria [3] has indeed provided important information about the environmental hazards caused by ship recycling activities. However, the study only offers qualitative data, which makes it unsuitable for comparative analysis (either across countries or across time). This limitation has driven Pasha et al. [1] and Talukder et al. [11] to conduct quantitative experimental research.

Pasha et al. [1] investigated the physicochemical properties of the water at the SRS Ship Breaking Yard (Chittagong, Bangladesh) to evaluate the environmental impact of the ship recycling industry. They collected water samples and analysed them in a laboratory. The results are summarised in Table 1 [1].

Table 1. Results of the water samples test [1].

In the same research, Pasha et al. [1] also carried out an environmental impact assessment based on a simple methodology called the Environment Evaluation System (EES). In this approach, the environmental impact was analysed using a numerical score that represents the effect of the ship recycling industry towards the environment. Positive and negative scores refer to the favourable and unfavourable impact, respectively. This score was computed via Equation (1) [1].

where V 1 is the relative change in the value of the environmental quality of the parameter, W 1 is the relative importance or weight of the parameter, n is the total number of environmental parameters related to the project, and EIV is the Environmental Impact Value. This assessment was performed based on several aspects, including physical, ecological, human interest, and quality of life. A calculation sample in the evaluation is illustrated in Table 2 [1].

The total score obtained from the evaluation was found to be unfavourable. This result is aligned with the most recent study about environmental impacts conducted by Talukder et al. [11] in 2015. An identical approach to Pasha et al. [1] was adopted in his research. Experiments were conducted to test the water quality (turbidity, salinity, dissolved oxygen, electric conductivity, pH, total dissolved solids, temperature, Ammonia-Nitrogen, Nitrate-Nitrogen, and Phosphate concentration) around the ship-breaking yard in Chittagong, Bangladesh. The results obtained in both studies are similar. In conclusion, both studies agreed that the ship recycling industry generates adverse effects on the environment.

Table 2. Environmental impact assessment [1].

Ship recycling activities harm not only the environment but also the workers’ health. Through these activities, common pollutants (asbestos, oil, PVC, and PCB) described in Section 2.1 are eventually exposed to the workers through their work surroundings, thus endangering their health. Andersen [4] singled out seven activities that potentially lead to contact with hazardous pollutants.

1) Removal and disposal of asbestos—Workers are exposed to the inhalation of asbestos fibres, which could cause cancer or asbestosis (Figure 4) [4].

Figure 4. Workers handling the asbestos (mask given by the photographer).

2) Removal and disposal of PCB—Workers are exposed to PCB through consumption and absorption through the skin, which can cause adverse health issues.

3) Removal of bilge and ballast water—Bilge and ballast water contain harmful organics, and their release can cause dangerous diseases.

4) Removal of oil and fuel—Oil and fuel contain toxic properties that can affect health. Workers are exposed to oil and affected by breathing in the toxic air, as shown in Figure 5 [12].

Figure 5. Workers are exposed to oil.

5) Removal and disposal of paint—Paint contains harmful substances and chemicals. Breathing in these releases could cause serious health problems or even cancer.

6) Cutting and disposal of metal—Torch cutting produces hazardous fumes that can cause a negative health impact.

7) Removal and discarding of various ship machinery—When dealing with machinery, workers are unprotected from the toxins (oil, fuel and asbestos).

Mishra and Mukherjee [5] also identified these activities as hazards associated with health issues. To tackle the problems, several control plans are mentioned, such as providing coverage, storage space for hazardous materials, and covered work areas.

Apart from evaluating the joint activities in the ship recycling industries, several factors affecting health and safety in the ship recycling industry in Bangladesh, India and Pakistan were identified and listed in Table 3 [13][14].

Table 3. Health and safety factors.

Muhibbullah M. [15] categorised the hazards and risks of ship breaking activities in Bangladesh in five different areas: Serious accident-related hazards, Physical hazards, Mechanical hazards, Biological hazards, Economic and physiological hazards. He also studied the problems and limitations associated with human rights and found that workers often perform the loading activities manually, leaving them vulnerable to accidents such as gas explosions, toxic gases, iron plates and sheets falling, etc. [15][16].

According to Andersen [4], another important aspect concerning the workers is safety. The current practices adopted by the ship recycling companies in the Indian subcontinent are not aligned with the international and national standards of the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OHSA). Furthermore, he listed four primary factors that endangered the operational safety of the workers.

1) Lack of proper training—Workers have inadequate skills to perform complex tasks.

2) No general working principle—Task is being carried out arbitrarily without proper sequence.

3) Inadequate personal protection equipment—Workers are exposed to hazardous fumes and chemicals that are inhaled and exposed (Figure 6) [4]. It can cause health deterioration.

Figure 6. Cutting work being done without protective equipment.

4) Less equipped with facilities and safety tools—Most heavy work is carried out manually without suitable machinery.

These factors are responsible for accidents that occur in the ship recycling yard. For example, without proper assessment and protocol, cutting works take place in the cargo tank, which contains explosive gases that could lead to an explosion.

This study began by collecting data on ship recycling activities in India, Bangladesh, and Pakistan, covering methods, technologies, facilities, and their impacts on the environment and workers, including socio-economic effects, health, and safety issues. It systematically analyzes studies published between 2009 and 2025 on current practices in the South Asian ship recycling industry, focusing on environmental hazards, risks to workers’ health and safety, and accident frequency. Data were sourced from published books, peer-reviewed journal articles, conference proceedings, and reports from reputable online platforms and international organizations, accessed through Google Scholar, ResearchGate, SpringerLink, ScienceDirect, and Taylor & Francis Online, as well as official organizational websites such as YPSA, Transparency International, World Bank, IMF, SAJ, and Shipbreaking Platform. Additional materials, including conference proceedings and statistical reports, were obtained from conference archives and institutional repositories. The search employed keywords such as “ship recycling”, “shipbreaking”, “South Asia”, “Bangladesh”, “India”, “Pakistan”, “health risks”, “environmental impact”, and “legal frameworks”, while excluding non-English papers, studies without specific data, publications before 2009, and works not focused on South Asia.

The accumulated data from each source was analysed using statistical methods to verify the results across literature. In section 5, the verified results are represented in bar charts and tables to conduct a comparative analysis among the three countries. The comparison analysis mainly focuses on several critical issues related to ship recycling: its role in the countries’ economy, legal status, workers’ status, and living conditions. Data about the ship recycling industry’s health and safety issues and environmental impact were also gathered and discussed in sections 6 and 7, respectively.

In Section 5, a risk assessment matrix/table is utilised as a tool to assess all activities that are deemed to be dangerous in the ship recycling process.

The following sequential steps were performed in carrying out the risk assessment: firstly, various types of activities accompanied by their sub-activities (if applicable) in ship recycling operations were listed. Furthermore, the potential hazards associated with each sub-activity, as well as their possible harmful effects on the workers, were also recorded. Every potential hazard and impact was subsequently evaluated based on how likely (probability of occurrence) and how severe (degree of impact) they might be, using the criteria specified in Table 4andTable 5. The probability and impact scales presented in Tables 4 and Table 5follow standard qualitative–quantitative risk assessment practices recommended by ISO 31010:2019, ensuring consistency with internationally accepted methodologies.

Table 4. Degree of probability.

Table 5. Impact of activity.

After determining the probability and severity of all hazards, the level of risk for each activity was determined (Table 3). The impact of activity is calculated via Equation (2).

Risk = Probability (in decimal) × Impact (2)

Lastly, the numerical value obtained from Equation (2) was then translated into three risk zones (low, medium, and high risk) using the Risk Matrix shown in Figure 7 [17].

Figure 7. Risk matrix.

When a particular activity is found to be a medium or high-risk zone, mitigation actions are recommended to minimise the possibility. A summary of the step-by-step procedure of the risk assessment is illustrated in Figure 8 [17].

Figure 8. Typical flow of risk assessment process.

Over the past three decades, the ship recycling industry in South Asia, particularly in Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan, has significantly contributed to the respective countries’ economies. The sector in these areas has been rapidly growing since 2000, outperforming Europe, Taiwan region, and Korea. To date, approximately 70% to 80% of the worldwide ship recycling market is dominated by these three countries.

The performance of the ship recycling industry in a particular place/country is quantified mainly by the number of gross steel tonnage produced from the recycling activities. This value is often even used as the industry’s key performance indicator (KPI), as the revenue is mainly generated from the sales of recycled steel. Thus, an analysis has been done to compare the financial performance of SBRI between Bangladesh, India and Pakistan based on the weight of steel produced annually by each country. The analysis result is illustrated in Figure 9 [18].

Figure 9. The weight of steel produced annually.

Apart from contributing to the global steel market, the ship recycling industry in the three countries has also played a prominent role in their domestic economy. In Bangladesh, about 50,000 workers are directly employed by ship-breaking and recycling firms to work full-time at the Chittagong yard. This large workforce is a valuable asset for Bangladesh’s steel production. On average, 50% of the national steel contribution comes from the ship recycling industry, which generates an annual revenue of USD 118 - 132 million for the government through taxes. On the other hand, the number of labourers recruited in the Gadani ship breaking yard in Pakistan nowadays is not as large as that in Bangladesh. Approximately only 15,000 workers are actively involved in the ship recycling process, which is only about half of the number of employees recruited in the 1980s during the peak of the industry.

The role of the ship recycling industry in India’s economy is significant. By exploiting 30,000 workers, more than 400 ships are scrapped yearly, generating an average of about 6 million gross tonnages of steel. However, although this contribution appears similar to a global steel contribution, it only accounts for 6% of the domestic steel production. The economic contributions of the ship recycling industry in the three countries are summarised in Table 6 [19].

Table 6. Number of employees and steel contribution generated by SBRI South Asia (2014) [19].

Despite more than 30 years of operation, there is no proper legal framework regulating the ship recycling industry in either Bangladesh or Pakistan. The lack of enforcement by the government is one of the main reasons why ship recycling firms neglect the importance of legal obligations in their business. On the contrary, proper legal frameworks and administrative regulations have been well established in India. A wide range of regulations and standards prevail in the industry, including the provision of labour insurance, waste removal facilities, as well as cargo movement across countries. Through this framework, the government benefits through various taxes imposed. Legal status in Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan is listed in Table 7[13].

Table 7. Status of current regulations and rules in ship breaking yards in the Indian subcontinent (2009) [13].

There is no written work agreement for semi-trained and untrained labourers in Bangladesh and Pakistan. They can be dismissed at any time without prior notice or justifiable reasons. Likewise, in India, the non-existence of job security due to the deficiency of official contracts has often frightened workers from carrying out their duties. In the ship recycling industry, the issue is more evident and critical. Being afraid of losing their jobs, the ship-breaking labourers in Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan deliberately give up their right to seek a safe environment in performing their work.

However, the lack of proper administration and written employment contracts does not always discourage potential employees in all of the abovementioned countries. It is found to be beneficial for villagers as they can get a job quite easily in the ship recycling industry without a qualification/education. According to a global survey across the Indian subcontinent countries, about 40% of the labourers in the industry have no previous education. This eventually leads to low salaries for workers, ranging from US$2.85 to US$4.15 per day. The status of the workers in the ship recycling industry in the Indian subcontinent is summarised in Table 8[20]-[22].

Table 8. Status of workers in SBRI South Asia (Data gathered from different years: 2006, 2010, 2014) [20]-[22].

The living conditions of labourers working in the shipyards in Gadani (Pakistan) are relatively poor. The lack of advanced technology, decent infrastructure, and facilities (hospital, housing, proper toilets) creates an unpleasant and unhealthy environment for them. Similarly, in Alang (India), ship recycling workers live in a miserable and harsh environment. Many workers suffer from the absence of appropriate sanitation facilities and accommodations. Also, only a small hospital in the area cannot accommodate the thousands of labourers.

In Bangladesh, the workers staying in the Chittagong shipyard face a similar situation. Apart from the absence of necessary facilities and housing, the poor waste management in the ship recycling process poses serious health problems for the workers. Air and water resources are highly polluted in the area. The comparison of living conditions among the workers in Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan is summarised in Table 9 [13][14][22].

Table 9. Living conditions in SBRI South Asia (Data gathered from different years: 2009, 2010, 2014) [13][14][22].

All three countries have experienced numerous political upheavals. Although the governments in these countries intend to be economically productive and raise their GDP (Gross Domestic Product), some challenges remain, such as poor planning and inefficient bureaucracy.

The extent of political instability differs in severity in these three countries. The Corruption Perception Index scorecard and the score of the involved countries are shown in Figure 10 and Table 11, respectively [23]. India ranks lowest among the three countries. This relates to the legal status prevailing in each country. All three countries are striving to improve their governance. India has shown better improvements than Bangladesh and Pakistan. It has consistently allocated resources and capital in the ship recycling industry, trying to upgrade the workforce and facilities. Moreover, India has established essential rules and regulations involving different authorities (see Table 7). Therefore, this makes India more competitive when vying for ship disposal contracts. To add, it can be interpreted that India is more reliable among the three countries due to better governance and structure. However, involving several politically affiliated institutions in the ship recycling industry can be a serious issue. Obtaining permission for ship recycling works would be time-consuming. This will eventually encourage the shipbreakers to circumvent the laws altogether.

Figure 10. Corruption Perception Index scorecard [23].

Table 11. Corruption perceptions index [23].

There are still insufficient considerations regarding the coverage of workers’ well-being and safety on handling hazardous materials. Workers in both Bangladesh and Pakistan’s ship recycling yards still face the absence of appropriate PPE. Moreover, the lack of training programmes in both countries also hinders the safety measures. Workers have inadequate knowledge of handling and identifying the potential hazards and dangerous materials. However, despite vigorous enforcement in equipping workers with PPE and training in India, the importance of incorporating fire-fighting facilities in the yard might have been overlooked (see Table 8). Also, without such a feature, common potential dangers such as fire outbreaks, oil spills, and chemical spills could not be efficiently dealt with and contained. This would pose severe risks to the workers and the environment. All three countries’ safety measures still lack the basis to ensure workers’ protection in the recycling yards.

The harmful materials in the ship recycling process, such as metals, asbestos, PCBs, PAH, oil, dioxins, and furan (as described in Section 2.1), are excessively generated during the following activities: metal cutting, oil tank drainage, and waste removal. In Bangladesh and Pakistan, these activities are currently not managed well, as there is no proper legal framework that binds ship recycling firms to adhere to their business practices. On the other hand, in India, an appropriate legal framework and governmental regulations have fundamentally controlled the ship recycling industry. A step-by-step supervision and administrative procedure has to be completed before all ship recycling activities can be performed. However, despite the existing legal frameworks, India’s ship recycling industry is still highly polluting to the environment. This could be mainly caused by the lack of facilities and/or irresponsible management in handling waste. Thus, the current performance of the ship recycling industry in the three Indian subcontinent countries is still substandard and can be improved regarding the following aspects:

Hazardous waste management facilities.Emergency handling capabilities.Standard working procedures.

This study is based entirely on secondary data from published literature and official reports. While efforts were made to select credible and up-to-date sources, the accuracy and completeness of the findings may be affected by regional differences in reporting standards, data availability, and potential biases in the original sources.

The issue of bureaucracy exists in all governments; the difference is in its extent. The lack of governmental initiatives to “free up” the ship recycling industry and make it more open regarding logistics and operations has proven to be the leading cause of an unfavourable environment. Therefore, eliminating some unnecessary administration would enhance the ship recycling industry. In addition, reducing the government bureaucracy may provide fewer opportunities for dishonesty and unauthorised activities by ship owners and breakers. Moreover, with simpler measures involved, ship recycling activities can be done more efficiently in terms of time and cost. This solution would improve the overall industry in the long term.

The current recycling yards were judged unsatisfactory and poor. Indeed, a serious improvement in the recycling yard is required in these countries, which involves government participation through investment. One possible investment might focus on establishing a dry dock recycling yard following the European counterparts, as shown in Figure 11. This initiative will enable the recycling process in the involved countries to be carried out in an orderly manner that does not jeopardise workers’ health and safety conditions.

Figure 11. Authors’ perspective of the government yard.

Figure 12. Authors’ perspective of the privatised yard.

Additionally, considering the involvement of the wide beaches in the current practice, the government could establish at least three dry docking yards along the beaches. These yards could also be rented out to private companies, which would then become a possible source of income for the government.

Besides the government, private companies can also step up their initiatives to upgrade their current yards. With a much simpler layout, as shown in Figure 12, these small upgrades could improve the industry’s current situation and attract potential contracts.