Opinion: Europe should evaluate ship recycling on results, not prejudices
The discussion regarding the inclusion of two Indian ship recycling yards on the European list of approved ship recycling facilities now says more about European perceptions than about the actual quality of the yards involved.
While the European Commission, after extensive inspections, has concluded that the two Indian ship recycling facilities comply with the requirements of the European ship recycling regulation, various parties are still attempting to block the inclusion. Their arguments vary from circularity and strategic autonomy to an alleged European ban on "beaching". But those who look at the facts see a remarkable contradiction: the same parties that have advocated for global improvement of environmental and safety standards for years now seem to struggle with the success of precisely that approach.
The question is simple: do these yards comply with European rules?
That should essentially be the end of the discussion. The European Commission proposes to include two Indian ship recycling facilities on the European list of ship recycling facilities because they have demonstrated compliance with the requirements of the European ship recycling regulation. This assessment is based on inspections, audits, and verification of the legal criteria. The inclusion is therefore not a political favor but the result of a technical and legal assessment process.
From the KVNR perspective, that is the core of the matter. Regulation derives its credibility from objective application. When a ship recycling facility meets European requirements, it should be admitted. When geographical preferences or political considerations become decisive, regulation turns into arbitrariness.
The true success of European regulation
The opponents of inclusion seem to overlook one fundamental point: the European ship recycling regulation was never intended solely to protect European ship recycling facilities or to keep ship recycling within the borders of the European Union. The aim was precisely to enforce higher standards worldwide.
For over ten years, ship recycling facilities outside Europe have invested millions in better infrastructure, environmental protection, labor safety, and waste management to comply with international and European standards. The Indian ship recycling facilities involved have done exactly what the European legislator intended: investing to reach the required level. Their nomination for inclusion on the European list is not a regulatory problem but rather the proof that it works.
A system that asks companies to invest in higher standards but then refuses to acknowledge those improvements loses its credibility.
Circularity does not stop at the European border
A popular argument is that Europe should retain recycling capacity within Europe from circularity considerations. That sounds appealing, but upon closer inspection, it holds little ground.
Circularity is not about the location of a ship recycling facility. Circularity is about the safe recovery of materials, minimizing waste, and the reuse of raw materials. Steel from a ship that is recycled under controlled conditions in India contributes just as much to the circular economy as steel recovered in Europe.
Moreover, maritime shipping is by definition a global sector. Ships sail worldwide, crews are international, and raw materials move across continents. The idea that circularity only has meaning within European borders misunderstands the reality of international value chains.
Strategic autonomy should not become disguised protectionism
The argument for European strategic autonomy is also increasingly put forward. Of course, Europe may strive for a strong industrial base. But the European list of ship recycling facilities is not designed as an industrial policy tool. It is a safety and environmental instrument.
When a ship recycling facility is rejected despite demonstrable compliance with European standards, simply because it is located outside Europe, the risk arises that strategic autonomy turns into disguised protectionism. This would not only be legally questionable but also counterproductive. Why would ship recycling facilities outside Europe still invest in better environmental and safety facilities if Europe has previously decided that recognition is impossible?
The persistent misunderstanding about beaching
The most emotional argument relates to the so-called ban on beaching. Environmental organizations claim that the European Union would effectively approve a method that would not be allowed within Europe. This often creates the impression that the inclusion of the Indian ship recycling facilities equates to a relaxation of European environmental rules. But that is not what the regulation says.
The European ship recycling regulation does not contain an explicit ban on a specific method of ship dismantling. What the regulation prescribes are performance requirements: protection of workers, control of waste streams, prevention of pollution, and adequate management of hazardous materials.
The European Commission has established that the Indian ship recycling facilities involved meet those criteria. This shifts the discussion from facts to ideology. The question should be whether the legal requirements are met, not whether a particular method is rejected on principle grounds after the competent authorities have concluded that the regulation is complied with.
A credibility test for Europe
On September 21, the EU member states will discuss and possibly decide on the 16th edition of the European list of ship recycling facilities proposed by the European Commission. The inclusion of the two Indian recycling yards on that list is ultimately more than a technical amendment of a list. It is a test for the credibility of European policy.
For years, Europe has proclaimed that high environmental and safety standards should be encouraged worldwide. Now that there are ship recycling facilities that have made enormous investments thanks to these European incentives to meet those standards, Europe must show that performance is genuinely rewarded.
The choice is simple. Either Europe adheres to objective criteria and recognizes ship recycling facilities that meet the rules, regardless of their location, or Europe makes it clear that political preferences ultimately outweigh its own legislation.
For the KVNR, the right choice is evident. Good ship recycling is determined by demonstrable performance in the field of environment and safety, not by a postcode. Therefore, Europe must adhere to a fact-based assessment system. That is fair, credible, and ultimately the best way to achieve better standards for ship recycling worldwide.
