Report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress

Report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress
Link: http://www.stiglitz-sen-fitoussi.fr/documents/rapport_anglais.pdf

Executive Summary
Why has this report been written?

1) In February 2008, the President of the French Republic, Nicholas Sarkozy, unsatisfied with the present state of statistical information about the economy and the society, asked, Joseph Stiglitz (President of the Commission), Amartya Sen (Advisor) and Jean Paul Fitoussi (Coordinator) to create a Commission, subsequently called “The Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress” (CMEPSP). The Commission’s aim has been to identify the limits of GDP as an indicator of economic performance and social progress, including the problems with its measurement; to consider what additional information might be required for the production of more relevant indicators of social progress; to assess the feasibility of alternative measurement tools, and to discuss how to present the statistical information in an appropriate way.

2) In effect, statistical indicators are important for designing and assessing policies aiming at advancing the progress of society, as well as for assessing and influencing the functioning of economic markets. Their role has increased significantly over the last two decades. This reflects improvements in the level of education in the population, increases in the complexity of modern economies and the widespread use of information technology. In the “information society”, access to data, including statistical data, is much easier. More and more people look at statistics to be better informed or to make decisions. To respond to the growing demand for information, the supply of statistics has also increased considerably, covering new domains and phenomena.

3) What we measure affects what we do; and if our measurements are flawed, decisions may be distorted. Choices between promoting GDP and protecting the environment may be false choices, once environmental degradation is appropriately included in our measurement of economic performance. So too, we often draw inferences about what are good policies by looking at what policies have promoted economic growth; but if our metrics of performance are flawed, so too may be the inferences that we draw.

4) However, there often seems to be a marked distance between standard measures of important socio economic variables like economic growth, inflation, unemployment, etc. and widespread perceptions. The standard measures may suggest, for instance that there is less inflation or more growth than individuals perceive to be the case, and the gap is so large and so universal that it cannot be explained by reference to money illusion or to human psychology. In some countries, this gap has undermined confidence in official statistics (for example, in France and in the United Kingdom. only one third of citizens trust official figures, and these countries are not exceptions), with a clear impact on the way in which public discourse about the conditions of the economy and necessary policies takes place.

5) There may be several explanations for the gap between the statistical measurement of socio-economic phenomena and citizen perception of the same phenomena:
– The statistical concepts may be correct, but the measurement process may be imperfect.
– In many cases, there are debates about what are the right concepts, and the appropriate use of different concepts.
– When there are large changes in inequality (more generally a change in income distribution) gross domestic product (GDP) or any other aggregate computed per capita may not provide an accurate assessment of the situation in which most people find themselves.
If inequality increases enough relative to the increase in average per capital GDP, most people can be worse off even though average income is increasing
– The commonly used statistics may not be capturing some phenomena, which have an increasing impact on the well-being of citizens. For example, traffic jams may increase GDP as a result of the increased use of gasoline, but obviously not the quality of life. Moreover, if citizens are concerned about the quality of air, and air pollution is increasing, then statistical measures which ignore air pollution will provide an inaccurate estimate of what is happening to citizens’ well-being. Or a tendency to measure gradual change may be inadequate to capture risks of abrupt alterations in the environment such as climate change.
– The way in which statistical figures are reported or used may provide a distorted view of the trends of economic phenomena. For example, much emphasis is usually put on GDP although net national product (which takes into account the effect of depreciation), or real household income (which focuses on the real income of households within the economy) may be more relevant. These numbers may differ markedly. Then, GDP is not wrong as such, but wrongly used. What is needed is a better understanding of the appropriate use of each measure.

6) Indeed, for a long time there have been concerns about the adequacy of current measures of economic performance, in particular those solely based on GDP. Besides, there are even broader concerns about the relevance of these figures as measures of societal well- being.

To focus specifically on the enhancement of inanimate objects of convenience (for example in the GNP or GDP which have been the focus of a myriad of economic studies of progress), could be ultimately justified – to the extent it could be – only through what these objects do to the human lives they can directly or indirectly influence. Moreover, it has long been clear that GDP is an inadequate metric to gauge well-being over time particularly in its economic, environmental, and social dimensions, some aspects of which are often referred to as sustainability.

Why is this report important?
7) Between the time that the Commission began working on this report and the completion of this Report, the economic context has radically changed. We are now living one of the worst financial, economic and social crises in post-war history. The reforms in measurement recommended by the Commission would be highly desirable, even if we had not had the crisis. But some members of the Commission believe that the crisis provides heightened urgency to these reforms. They believe that one of the reasons why the crisis took many by surprise is that our measurement system failed us and/or market participants and government officials were not focusing on the right set of statistical Report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress indicators. In their view, neither the private nor the public accounting systems were able to deliver an early warning, and did not alert us that the seemingly bright growth performance of the world economy between 2004 and 2007 may have been achieved at the expense of future growth. It is also clear that some of the performance was a “mirage”, profits that were based on prices that had been inflated by a bubble. It is perhaps going too far to hope that had we had a better measurement system, one that would have signalled problems ahead, so governments might have taken early measures to avoid or at least to mitigate the present turmoil. But perhaps had there been more awareness of the limitations of standard metrics, like GDP, there would have been less euphoria over economic performance in the years prior to the crisis; metrics which incorporated assessments of sustainability (e.g. increasing indebtedness) would have provided a more cautious view of economic performance. But many countries lack a timely and complete set of wealth accounts – the ‘balance sheets’ of the economy – that could give a comprehensive picture of assets, debts and liabilities of the main actors in the economy.

8) We are also facing a looming environmental crisis, especially associated with global warming. Market prices are distorted by the fact that there is no charge imposed on carbon emissions; and no account is made of the cost of these emissions in standard national income accounts. Clearly, measures of economic performance that reflected these environmental costs might look markedly different from standard measures.

9) If the view expressed in the preceding paragraphs is not necessarily shared by all members of the Commission, the whole Commission is convinced that the crisis is teaching us a very important lesson: those attempting to guide the economy and our societies are like pilots trying to steering a course without a reliable compass. The decisions they (and we as individual citizens) make depend on what we measure, how good our measurements are and how well our measures are understood. We are almost blind when the metrics on which action is based are ill-designed or when they are not well understood. For many purposes, we need better metrics.

Fortunately, research in recent years has enabled us to improve our metrics, and it is time to incorporate in our measurement systems some of these advances. There is also consensus among the Commission members that better measures may enable us to steer our economies better through and out of crises. Many of the indicators put forward by the report will lend themselves to this purpose.

10) ... [policy]...

11) ...[progress in statistical measurement]
By whom has the report been written?

12) ...

13) ...[audience 1.] ...political leaders...

14) ... 2. policy-makers...

15) ... 3. academic community...

16) ... 4. civil society organization...public...

What are the main messages and recommendations?

17) The report distinguishes between an assessment of current well-being and an assessment of sustainability, whether this ca last over time. Current well-being has to do with both economic resources, such as income, and with non-economic aspects of peoples’ life (what they do and what they can do, how they feel, and the natural environment they live in). Whether these levels of well-being can be sustained over time depends on whether stocks of capital that matter for our lives (natural, physical, human, social) are passed on to future generations.

To organise its work, the Commission organized itself into three working groups, focusing respectively on: Classical GDP issues, Quality of life and Sustainability. The following main messages and recommendations arise from the report

Towards better measures of economic performance in a complex economy
18) Before going beyond GDP and tackling the more difficult task of measuring well-being, it is worth asking where existing measures of economic performance need improving. Measuring production – a variable which among other things determines the level of employment – is essential for the monitoring of economic activity. The first main message of our report is that time has come to adapt our system of measurement of economic activity to better reflect the structural changes which have characterized the evolution of modern economies. In effect, the growing share of services and the production of increasingly complex products make the measurement of output and economic performance more difficult than in the past. There are now many products whose quality is complex, multi-dimensional and subject to rapid change.

This is obvious for goods, like cars, computers, washing machines and the like, but is even truer for services, such as medical services, educational services, information and communication technologies, research activities and financial services. In some countries and some sectors, increasing “output” is more a matter of an increase in the quality of goods produced and consumed than in the quantity. Capturing quality change is a tremendous challenge, yet this is vital to measuring real income and real consumption, some of the key determinants of people’s material well-being. Under-estimating quality improvements is equivalent to over-estimating the rate of inflation, and therefore to under-estimating real income. The opposite is true when quality improvements are overstated.

19) Governments play an important part in today’s economies. They provide services of a “collective” nature, such as security, and of a more “individual” nature, such as medical services and education. The mix between private and public provision of individual services varies significantly across countries and over time. Beyond the contribution of collective services to citizens’ living standards, individual services, particularly education, medical services, public housing or public sports facilities, are almost certainly valued positively by citizens. These services tend to be large in scale, and have increased considerably since World War II, but, in many cases, they remain badly measured. Traditionally, measures have been based on the inputs used to produce these services (such as the number of doctors) rather than on the actual outputs produced (such as the number of particular medical treatments). Making adjustments for quality changes is even more difficult. Because outputs are taken to move in tandem with inputs productivity change in the provision of these services is ignored. It follows that if there is positive (negative) productivity change in the public sector, our measures under (over)-estimate economic growth and real income. For a satisfactory measure of economic performance and living standards it is thus important to come to grips with measuring government output. (In our present, admittedly flawed, system of measurement based on expenditures, government output represents around 20% of GDP in many OECD countries and total government expenditure more than 40% for the OECD countries.)

20) While there are methodological disagreements about how to make the adjustments to quality or how to go about measuring government output, there is a broad consensus that adjustments should be made, and even about the principles which should guide such adjustments. The disagreements arise in the practical implementation of these principles. The Commission has addressed both the principles and the difficulties in implementations, in its Report.

From production to well-being

21) Another key message, and unifying theme of the report, is that the time is ripe for our measurement system to shift emphasis from measuring economic production to measuring people’s well-being. And measures of well-being should be put in a context of sustainability. Despite deficiencies in our measures of production, we know much more about them than about well-being. Changing emphasis does not mean dismissing GDP and production measures. They emerged from concerns about market production and employment; they continue to provide answers to many important questions such as monitoring economic activity. But emphasising well-being is important because there appears to be an increasing gap between the information contained in aggregate GDP data and what counts for common people’s well-being. This means working towards the development of a statistical system that complements measures of market activity by measures centred on people’s well-being and by measures that capture sustainability....
Recommendation 1: When evaluating material well-being, look at income and consumption rather than production

22) GDP is the most widely-used measure of economic activity. ... GDP mainly measures market production – expressed in money units – and as such it is useful. However, it has often been treated as if it were a measure of economic well-being. Conflating the two can lead to misleading indications about how well-off people are and entail the wrong policy decisions. Material living standards are more closely associated with measures of net national income, real household income and consumption – production can expand while income decreases or vice versa when account is taken of depreciation, income flows into and out of a country, and differences between the prices of output and the prices of consumer products.

Recommendation 2: Emphasise the household perspective

23) While it is informative to track the performance of economies as a whole, trends in citizens’ material living standards are better followed through measures of household income and consumption.

Indeed, the available national accounts data shows that in a number of OECD countries real household income has grown quite differently from real GDP per capita, and typically at a lower rate. The household perspective entails taking account of payments between sectors, such as taxes going to government, social benefits coming from government, and interest payments on household loans going to financial corporations. Properly defined, household income and consumption should also reflect in-kind services provided by government, such as subsidized health care and educational services. Recommendation 3: Consider income and consumption jointly with wealth

24) Income and consumption are crucial for assessing living standards, but in the end they can only be gauged in conjunction with information on wealth. A household that spends its wealth on consumption goods increases its current well-being but at the expense of its future well-being. The consequences of such behavior would be captured in a household’s balance sheet, and the same holds for other sectors of the economy, and for the economy as a whole. To construct balance sheets, we need comprehensive accounts of assets and liabilities....
Recommendation 4: Give more prominence to the distribution of income, consumption and wealth

25)...
Recommendation 5: Broaden income measures to non-market activities

26)

27) Once one starts focusing on non-market activities, the question of leisure arises. Consuming the same bundle of goods and services but working for 1500 hours a year instead of 2000 hours a year implies an increase in one’s standard of living. Although valuation of leisure is fraught with difficulties, comparisons of living standards over time or across countries needs to take into account the amount of leisure that people enjoy.

Well-being is multi-dimensional
28) To define what well-being means a multidimensional definition has to be used. Based on academic research and a number of concrete initiatives developed around the world, the Commission has identified the following key dimension that should be taken into account. At least in principle, these dimensions should be considered simultaneously:

i. Material living standards (income, consumption and wealth);
ii. Health;
iii. Education;
iv. Personal activities including work
v. Political voice and governance;
vi. Social connections and relationships;
vii. Environment (present and future conditions);
viii. Insecurity, of an economic as well as a physical nature.

All these dimensions shape people’s well-being, and yet many of them are missed by conventional income measures.
Objective and subjective dimensions of well-being are both important

Recommendation 6: Quality of life depends on people’s objective conditions and capabilities.

29) The information relevant to valuing quality of life goes beyond people’s self-reports and perceptions to include measures of their “functionings” and freedoms. In effect, what really matters are the capabilities of people, that is, the extent of their opportunity set and of their freedom to choose among this set, the life they value. The choice of relevant functionings and capabilities for any quality of life measure is a value judgment, rather than a technical exercise. ... There is a consensus that quality of life depends on people’s health and education, their everyday activities (which include the right to a decent job and housing), their participation in the political process, the social and natural environment in which they live, and the factors shaping their personal and economic security. Measuring all these features requires both objective and subjective data....

Recommendation 7: Quality-of-life indicators in all the dimensions covered should assess inequalities in a comprehensive way

30) ...
Recommendation 8: Surveys should be designed to assess the links between various quality-of-life domains for each person, and this information should be used when designing policies in various fields
...
by Professor Joseph E. Stiglitz 1, Amartya Sen 2 and Jean-Paul Fitoussi
1. Professor, Chair, Columbia University
2. Professor, Chair, Adviser, Harvard University
3. Professor, Coordinator of the Commission, IEP
Other Members
Bina Agarwal University of Delhi
Kenneth J. Arrow Stanford University
Anthony B. Atkinson, Warden of Nuffield College
François Bourguignon, School of Economics,
Jean-Philippe Cotis, Insee,
Angus S. Deaton, Princeton University
Kemal Dervis, UNPD
Marc Fleurbaey, Université Paris 5
Nancy Folbre, University of Massachussets
Jean Gadrey, Université Lille
Enrico Giovannini, OECD
Roger Guesneries, Collège de France
James J. Heckman, University of Chicago
Geoffrey Heal, Columbia University
Claude Henry, Sciences-Po/Columbia University
Daniel Kahneman, Princeton University
Alan B. Krueger, Princeton University
Andrew J. Oswald, University of Warwick
Robert D. Putnam, Harvard University
Nick Stern, London School of Economics
Cass Sunstein, University of Chicago
Philippe Weil Sciences Po

Report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress

Read more...

Will they vote out democracy and vote in Corpotocracy?

The dangerous designs of India’s biotech peddlers

AN OPEN LETTER TO Mr SHARAD PAWAR, UNION MINISTER FOR AGRICULUTRE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.

--p v satheesh, Director, Deccan Development Society, Hyderabad

The petition from the Foundation for Biotechnology Awareness and Education, addressed to you demanding a reversal of the moratorium on Bt Brinjal is a pernicious piece of advocacy. What it actually requests you is to vote out democracy and vote in corporate control. That the FABE has the gumption to describe one of the most open, transparent, democratic and participatory exercises in India since independence, as the victory of decibel levels points to the utter contempt this organization, which is a front for the genetic industry, has for democratic processes. That the overwhelming majority of the people in Europe, Africa, Asia and parts of Latin America who constitute more than 95% of the world population have refused to eat genetically engineered foods has been completely hidden from you by pseudo scientists such as Dr Kameswara Rao in their appeal,. It may also be a sobering thought if we can find out how many scientists participated in the nationwide exercise undertaken by the MoEF to ascertain the truth about Bt Brinjal.

At least some of the major scientists such as Dr P M Bhargava [father of microbiology and biotechnology in India] and Prof Swaminathan were not convinced that Bt Brinjal will do any good to Indian farmers or food consumers.

Mr Minister, as a Member of Parliament representing the farmers of India, you would be shocked to learn that Dr Kameswara Rao, in a forum on biotechnology held in Tirupati, AP, a few years ago, had openly declared that Indian farmers do not know how to grow cotton!! Now he is saying that Indian people do not know how to eat food. Both these outrageous statements have been made because the Indian farmers had then refused to be snared by the Bt Cotton and the Indian consumers have now totally rejected GE foods. The supposed anxiety he exhibits for the poor farmers could put a crocodile to shame. The singular concern that Dr Rao and his FBAE is for the profits of their paymasters, Monsanto and other biotech companies, and nothing else. All claims to the increased yields. reduced pesticide use etc. is an unadulterated lie.

The mounting evidence of the failure of GE crops in many parts of the world tells you another truth far different from Dr Rao’s lie. Even in the USA, the home of GE crops, according to the statistics released by the USDA itself, between 1995 and 2001, when the GE crops ruled the roost on the US farms, not a single ounce of pesticide use came down even while the global pesticide use was showing a declining trend in pesticide use. As far as crop yields were concerned, soybeans, a major target of the GE industry, the yields actually declined form 42 Bushels/acre to 39.5 Bushels/acre between 1994 and 2009!

The story of Bt cotton on Indian farmland is a cloak and dagger story of how the seed industry led aggression of Monsanto, formed itself into a cartel and denied non Bt cotton seeds to the Indian farmer. Our multilocational studies over the last six years in Andhra Pradesh as well as many other studies by respected scientists in Karnataka and Vidarbha have illustrated how farmers, especially the small and the poor, the beneficiaries of Dr Rao’s crocodile tears, have suffered extraordinary losses, damages to their health and their soil and have lost their livestock to the toxic effect of Bt Cotton.

Hundreds of farmers both in the Warangal District of Andhra Pradesh and in the Vidarbha region of Maharashtra had to end their lives by committing suicides. This is the reality of the multiple benefits that Bt cotton has brought on the small farmers of India. In fact the genetic engineering industry has designed its own epistemology to explain away this situation. They say that the small farmers cannot cope with this technology Then how big should a farmer be to cope with the GE technology? Monsanto’s own study in Argentina fixed it as a minimum holding of 75 hectares!.

Respected Minisiter, would we want all the less than 75 hectare holding farmers pariahs of farming? If we did so, 99% of Indian farmers should not farm GE at all. And that would be good for Indian agriculture. Please listen to what Chief T A Buthalezi of Makathini, South Africa, told me in filmed interview. Please remember that Chief Buthalezi is the posterboy of Monsanto which has used him to internationally tomtom how Bt cotton has helped the poor in South Africa. But when I challenged Buthalezi to open his heart and tell me how as a farmer leader, he felt Bt crops could serve farmers, he thought deeply and told me: “Unless you have 20-30 hectares of farmland, you will not be helped by Bt Cotton.”

This is the reality of GE science Mr Minister. Dr Rao says that GE has the support of over 560 scientists across the world. For every scientist who has endorsed this, there are ten scientists who have been pointing to the hazards of GE foods. They not only include crop scientists, but also a whole range of medical scientists, nutritionists, ecological scientists. It would be a sobering thought for Dr Rao and his ilk if they A recent report by the Union of Concerned Scientists, a very large body of scientists from across the globe, demonstrates that GM crops don't increase crop yields.

Millions of dollars spent in Kenya by USAID and Monsanto over two decades to develop a virus-resistant sweet potato failed to deliver anything useful for farmers. After 14 years and $6 million, local varieties vastly outperformed their genetically modified cousins in field trials. Even the success stories of Bt Cotton that are peddled by Monsanto in India are manufactured by the industry and not supported by science. A major study conducted by the Hannover University in the Haveri District of Karnataka clearly pointed to falling incomes of Bt cotton farmers in comparison with non Bt Cotton farmers. [ASHOK MALKARNEKAR, DIEMUTH PEMSL, HERMANN WAIBEL University of Hannover, Development and Agricultural Economics, Germany]

I have conducted personal interviews in the Warangal District of AP wherein farmers have reported that the Raasi cotton they had planted in 2000 had given them yields upto 14 qtls/acre vis a vis 10 qtls/acre yield they got in 2004 when they panted Raasi

Bt cotton seeds. The same trend is reported by a Nebraska University study in 2007 which reported a yield loss of between 7% and 11% for GE Soy in comparison with the best non GE hybrids that the farmers planted. A year later Kansas University reported that its studies had confirmed that pre GE soy yields were 10% higher than GE soy yields. The same story was repeated with regard to GE maize, cotton and canola. The biotech brigade such as Dr Rao and his company has worked very hard to conceal these truths from the world. And therefore Mr Minister, please do not let yourself or your Ministry be mislead by the repeated lies of these corporate scientists.

As far as the health impacts are concerned listen to the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) which last year called on “Physicians to educate their patients, the medical community, and the public to avoid GM (genetically modified) foods when possible and provide educational materials concerning GM foods and health risks.” They called for a moratorium on GM foods, long-term independent studies, and labeling. AAEM’s position paper stated, “Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food,” including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system. They conclude, “There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation,” as defined by recognized scientific criteria. Therefore Mr Minister, the FBAE is actually spinning a fable when it tells you that GE foods are safe and is actually misleading you.

In terms of environmental impact, the GE industry has consistently spread the untruth that GE crops neither contaminate other crops nor do they harm the environment. The truth is on the other side. Over years, the incidences of GE crops contaminating the non GE crops and their wild relatives is a widely known fact. In fact, the shamelessness of the GE industry was evident when Syngenta a top biotech corporate announced that it had manufactured a contamination detection and decontamination kit for use by farmers. If GE crops do not contaminate at all why then must Syngenta take the great trouble of producing and marketing a decontamination kit? Dr Rao is also famous for similar obfuscation of truth.

In the Tirupati public meeting he said a blatant lie that crop pollens become sterilie if they cross a distance of a few meters! This is the kind of science he and his FBAE peddles, Mr Minister. Beware of them.

Our own personal experience after five years of consistent community based research on Bt cotton in three districts of Andhra Pradesh have pointed out to three consistent trends:

1. Increasing soil toxicity, which started at 0 levels in 2002 and spread to 40% of all Bt cotton planted soils resulting in root rot disease. This meant that 40% of all Bt cotton planted soils had turned toxic within five years. [While the biotech brigade pooh poohed these results, a recent study called Detection of transgenic cp4 epsps genes in the soil food web by Miranda M et al published in the international journal Agronomy for Sustainable Agriculture unequivocally states that in a field of Roundup Ready corn, we quantified the presence of the transgene for glyphosate tolerance within a soil food web. Using quantitative real-time PCR, we identified the cp4 epsps transgene in bulk soil microarthropods, nematodes, macroarthropods and earthworms sampled within the corn cropping system. We found evidence of the transgene at all dates and in all animal groups. This is a clear evidence that transgenes move from plants to soil flora and affect them.]

2. A worrying trend of death of cattle was reported in 2003. Despite our appeals to national institutions such as the National Institute of Nutrition, the government abdicated its responsibility to conduct any scientific research into this phenomenon. Disgusted, we did our own small scale research by stall feeding three groups of sheep, two with Bollgard 1 and Bollgard 2 crop residues and one group non Bt cotton crops. At the end of 13th week, all the sheep fed on Bt residues died while the non Bt fed sheep stayed alive and healthy.

3. Hundreds of cotton pickers reported skin allergies and breathing problems after working in Bt fields, a disease they had never encountered in non Bt fields. This is very well documented on video and in writing.

Then comes the question of super weeds. Tens of instances have been recorded when weeds which become resistant to the Weedicides produced by the GE industry have come to the surface over the last ten years. Such incidents have even forced the normally GE friendly US Supreme Court to hear arguments involving a federal judge’s temporary ban on a breed of pesticide resistant Alfalfa.

Even as I write this mail to you the US Supreme Court is poised to hear these arguments in what will be a landmark judgement on GE in that country. [Mr Minister, you probably might remember that GE industry had transported a dozen or more US senators to India in 2003 to ostensibly take part in the National Science Congress. But their actual mandate was to meet and convince Indian Supreme Court judges about the new adjudication they have make with regard to the biotech litigations they might face.

The Senators, as reported by the leading Food Policy Analyst Dr Devendar Sharma, offered to host a string of workshops in the USA for Indian judges so that their thinking is as genetically modified as the judges in the US of A. Therefore the tentacles of the GE industry is as widespread and as dangerous as the seeds and chemicals they produce. They even create a judicial environment that will be favourable them in crunch time]

Therefore Mr Minister, we need to tread with great caution. On GE the only caution we must exercise is to be constantly vigilant against the corporate science that constantly tries the push the envelope no matter in the process they subvert principles of science or the principles of democracy. We must let them know that Indian democracy is vibrant because of its decibel levels and its relentless fight for truth. It is not a dimpled ballot democracy such as the USA where GOP friendly judges can elect the President of the country and defeat their people.

With warm regards

[p v satheesh]

Director, Deccan Development Society, Hyderabad

Bt brinjal is safe, scientists averGM crops grown on over 125 million ha

Bangalore: More than 540 scientists from India and around the world have signed a petition urging Union Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar to explore ways to reverse the moratorium on the commercialisation of Bt brinjal in India.

Describing the moratorium by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) as an anti-science decision, the petition says that genetically modified (GM) food has been consumed by hundreds of millions of people for 15 years now without any harm to human health or the environment. The petition was drafted by the Foundation for
Biotechnology Awareness and Education (FBAE).

Bt brinjal has been given the all-clear by the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee. But Jairam Ramesh has based his decision on public opinion and not on scientific reason,said C. Kameswara Rao, executive secretary of FBAE, at a press conference here on Friday.

The petition urged the Minister to “consult leading scientific academies of India on GM crop technology and Bt brinjal. The Indian scientific community is overwhelmingly in support of Bt brinjal. The MoEF's decision has ramifications beyond Bt brinjal as it has sent a powerful message to the world that India's decisions on matters of science and technology will not be made on the basis of science and biosafety, but on the decibel strengths of ideologically motivated, anti-science activists, states the petition. The MoEF appears to see no urgency in delivering the fruits of modern biotechnology to poor farmers.

Increased yield

GM crops are now planted on more than 125 million hectares in India and other countries and have been shown to increase crop yields, reduce the use of agrochemicals, and improve the nutritive quality of foods, says the plea. Several countries, including the U.S., have approved GM crops for commercial cultivation.

[FROM THE HINDU, APRIL 24, 2010]

Read more...

Burning Plastic Wastes is Illegal

In this piece, one is using the word burning and incineration to mean the same. Generally, the former means open burning and the latter is used to refer to combustion under claimed "controlled" conditions of a furnace using state-of-art technology.

With regard to burning of waste, Supreme Court of India has ruled in the Writ Petition (Civil) 657 of 1995 on 14th October, 2003 that "There should be immediate ban of burning of any material whether hazardous or non-hazardous on the beach." Under the Environmental Protection Act, 1986, the Bio-Medical Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 1998, clearly specify a ban on burning of chlorinated plastics saying " chlorinated plastics shall not be incinerated".

With specific reference to Municipal waste, there is no ban on burning of plastic waste as such but the above provisions can be used creatively.

Burning of unsegregated waste laden with plastics is quite a common practice in India including PVC. (poly-vinyl-chloride) that cause emission of dioxins. It is noteworthy that PVC accounts for the highest percent (26%) of the total consumption of plastics in India.

There are different kinds of plastics with different results on burning. It could result in a hydrocarbon, or cyanides, or PCB’s, or lots of other substances. It would be difficult to know from a mixed waste as to what are the likely volatiles it would create. Notably, volatiles released from plastics in house fires are a major cause of death.

The fact remains Government of India and plastic industry promotes waste burning (incineration) as a matter of its ideal policy although Dioxins are released mostly from burning of chlorinated plastics and wastes. Compostable part of garbage assists in the production of dioxin that requires organic matter, chlorine and reactive thermal environment. Dioxins causes various cancers and a big health hazard.

Exposure to dioxin causes skin rashes, discoloration of skin, liver damage etc. Dioxin has also been responsible for psychological damage, reduced level of male sex hormone and cardiovascular deterioration.

Still legally, it can be dealt with using the Indian Penal Code and Criminal Procedure Code. The Code has dealt with solid waste management under Chapter XIV ‘of offences affecting the public health, safety, convenience, decency and morals’. Given the fact that solid waste gives rise to various type of diseases and is dangerous to public health, it has been treated as ‘public nuisance’ and has been made punishable. This can be applied but there is no direct section of the problem of solid waste in the Code.

It can be addressed also under Section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code that deals with ‘removal of nuisance’ and empowers the Sub-Divisional Magistrate or any executive Magistrate, on receiving report/information, to make order to remove the public nuisance and desist from carrying any trade, business which is causing public nuisance. In fact courts have made use of Section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code to deal with the problem of waste.

In the famous case of Municipal Corporation, Ratlam v. Shri Vardhichand Justice Krishna Iyer declared that ‘…the guns of Section 133 go into action wherever there is public nuisance. The public power of the Magistrate under the Code is a public duty to the members of the public who are victims of the nuisance.’ If the order is defied or ignored, Section 188, I.P.C. comes into penal play. It was further, observed that ‘imperative tone of S. 133, Cr.P.C. read with the punitive temper of S. 188 I.P.C. makes the prohibitory act a mandatory duty.’ The Court also pointed out that Article 47 of the Indian Constitute makes it a paramount principle of governance that ‘steps are taken for the improvement of public health as amongst its primary duties.’

In the Dr. B.L. Wadehra v. Union of India case, the court said, ‘resident of Delhi have a statutory right to live in a clean city.’ It was first case where Court dealt with the right to clean environment of the citizens and obligatory duty of the government and its instrumentalities to keep the city and town clean but the condition of Delhi has not improved and now it is resorting to promotion of waste incineration.

In Almitra case related to solid waste disposal management of four metropolitan cities—namely, Mumbai, Chennai, Calcutta, Delhi and Bangalore, the court expressed its unhappiness for non-compliance of its directions issued in Dr. B.L. Wadhera (1996) case. The court against issued ten directions ‘in addition to not in derogation to the order passed in Dr. B.L. Wadhera case’ for the national capital region. These orders too have not been complied with so far, there were deadlines set that have not been met as well.

The Municipal Solid Wastes (Management and Handling) [MSW]Rules, 2000 under the Environmental Protection Act, 1986 has defined ‘municipal solid waste’ as ‘commercial and residential wastes generated in a municipal or notified areas in either solid or semi-solid form including treated bio-medical wastes but excluding industrial hazardous wastes.

The MSW Rules, 2000 came in response to these court orders. Rule 4 of the MSW Rules makes every ‘municipal authority’ responsible to implement those rules and ‘for any infrastructure development for collection, storage, segregation, transportation, processing and disposal of municipal solid waste.’ Schedule II - I(vii) of MSW Rules says "Waste (garbage, dry leaves) shall not be burnt;"

Schedule II - 5(i) says "The biodegradable wastes shall be processed by composting, vermicomposting, anaerobic digestion or any other appropriate biological processing for stabilization of wastes. It shall be ensured that compost or any other end product shall comply with standards as specified in Schedule-IV"

Schedule II - 5(ii) says -"Mixed waste containing recoverable resources shall follow the route of recycling. Incineration with or without energy recovery including pelletisation can also be used for processing wastes in specific cases..."

It also requires that the municipal authority or an operator will have to seek permission for setting up waste processing and disposal facility including landfills from the State Pollution Board or the committee constituted for the purpose.

The over-all responsibility for the enforcement of the provisions of these rules in metropolitan cities have been given to the Secretary-incharge of the Department of Urban Development of the State/Union Territory. Further, the District Magistrate/Deputy Commissioner of the concerned district shall have the overall responsibility for the enforcement of these rules within their area of jurisdiction. (Rule 5)

A careful reading of the Rules shows that burning of waste is not allowed.

Sadly, the Rules allow incineration (but not open burning), including pelletisation of waste (that too for use as a fuel) subject to it meeting Dioxins standards mentioned in the guidelines of hazardous waste incinerators although to my knowledge there is no functional Dioxins testing laboratory in India. One does not know how those standards were arrived at or whether or not there is indeed a safe level of Dioxins exposure.

Under the present circumstances, it would be better to take the route of using IPC and CrPC because it was aptly used by Justice Iyer for an immediate remedy.

Read more...

Hexavalent Chromium laden Hazardous Wates Dumped in Delhi

Note: Three years ago Delhi Pollution Control Committee (DPCC) did a survey in 2007 on the inventory of industrial units generating hazardous waste. While DPCC had given authorization to only 1,747 units, the survey compiled data for 2,689 units.
As per this survey, annually 5,300 tonnes of hazardous waste is generated in the capital. DPCC has no information on generation of hazardous waste for 2008 and 2009.

Hexavalent chromium laden hazardous wastes that has been found at the 23 sites in Delhi is matter of huge concern. Hexavalent chromium is used for the production of stainless steel, textile dyes, wood preservation, leather tanning, and as anti-corrosion and conversion coatings as well as a variety of niche uses.

Hexavalent chromium is recognized as a human carcinogen through inhalation. Workers in many different occupations are exposed to hexavalent chromium. Problematic exposure is known to occur among workers who handle chromate-containing products as well as those who arc weld stainless steel. Within the European Union, the use of hexavalent chromium in electronic equipment is largely prohibited by the Restriction of Hazardous Substances Directive.

Hexavalent chromium was found in drinking water in the Southern California town of Hinkley drew popular attention by the involvement of Erin Brockovich. The 0.58 ppm in the groundwater in Hinkley exceeded the Maximum Contaminant Level of 0.10 ppm currently set by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. A similar case occurred in 2007 in Asopos River, near Oinofyta, Greece and Brockovich was again involved.

The case alleged contamination of drinking water with hexavalent chromium, also known as chromium(VI), in the southern California town of Hinkley. At the center of the case was a facility called the Hinkley Compressor Station, part of a natural gas pipeline connecting to the San Francisco Bay Area and constructed in 1952. Between 1952 and 1966, PG&E used hexavalent chromium to fight corrosion in the cooling tower. The wastewater dissolved the hexavalent chromium from the cooling towers and was discharged to unlined ponds at the site. Some of the wastewater percolated into the groundwater, affecting an area near the plant approximately two miles long and nearly a mile wide. The case was settled in 1996 for US$333 million, the largest settlement ever paid in a direct action lawsuit in US history.

In June 2009, Brockovich began investigating a case of contaminated water in Midland, Texas. "Significant amounts" of hexavalent chromium were found in the water of more than 40 homes in the area, some of which have now been fitted with state-monitored filters on their water supply.[11] Brockovich said "The only difference between here and Hinkley, is that I saw higher levels here than I saw in Hinkley."

Brockovich's book entitled Take It From Me: Life's a Struggle But You Can Win was published in October 2001. Her story is the topic of a feature film, Erin Brockovich, starring Julia Roberts in the title role.

In India, Sukinda Valley, in the State of Orissa, contains 97% of India's chromite ore deposits and one of the largest open cast chromite ore mines in the world. Sukinda is a classic example of pollution where the wastes are spread over a large area and residents are affected by the chromium through multiple pathways. The pollution problem from the chromite mines is well known and the mining industry has taken some steps to reduce the levels of contamination by installing treatment plants. However, according to state audits from Orissa, these fail to meet agency regulations. The Orissa government has said, "It is unique, it is gigantic and it is beyond the means and purview of the [Orissa Pollution Control] Board to solve the problem."

While debilitating health impacts of the toxic pollution is routine, remediation actions are non-existent. Be it Sukinda or Delhi, the way Hexavalent Chromium causes cancer is no different. It happens both through consumption of drinking water and as a result of inhalation exposure in certain occupational settings. It can cause allergic reactions, such as skin rash. After breathing it in chromium(VI) can cause nose irritations and nosebleeds.

Other health problems that are caused by chromium(VI) are: Skin rashes, Upset stomachs, and ulcers, Respiratory problems, Weakened immune systems, Kidney and liver damage, Alteration of genetic material, Lung cancer and Death.

The health hazards associated with exposure to chromium are dependent on its oxidation state.

The metal form (chromium as it exists in this product) is of low toxicity. The hexavalent form is toxic. Adverse effects of the hexavalent form on the skin may include ulcerations, dermatitis, and allergic skin reactions.

Inhalation of hexavalent chromium compounds can result in ulceration and perforation of the mucous membranes of the nasal septum, irritation of the pharynx and larynx, asthmatic bronchitis, bronchospasms and Respiratory symptoms may include coughing and wheezing, shortness of breath, and nasal itch.

Five states- Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Gujarat, Maharashtra and Karnataka taken together, generate more than 80 percent of the country's hazardous wastes. The quantification of Delhi's hazardous waste is incomplete else it would surely have found a place in this august group of states.

Gopal Krishna

Many illegal dumping sites have hazardous waste: Survey

Bindu Shajan Perappadan

“Long-term exposure can cause lung, kidney, stomach and skin problems”

47 samples collected from various Delhi areas

23 sites found to be containing the chemical

NEW DELHI: Several illegal dumping sites across the Capital have been found to have hazardous waste hexavalent chromium, long-term exposure to which is known to cause lung, kidney, stomach and skin problems, according to the last survey conducted by the Delhi Pollution Control Committee.

The Committee looked at all the units generating hazardous waste in the city and the method used to dispose it. The survey also looked at illegal dumping sites and 47 samples were collected from various areas in Delhi and analysed for various parameters. The study found that 23 sites were found to be containing hexavalent chromium which exceeds the prescribed limit.

During the survey, data for 35 industrial areas in the Capital was complied and it was found that the Wazirpur Industrial Area was generating the highest quantum of waste about 790 tonnes per annum, industrial regions including Okhla, Nariana and Samaipur were also generating significant quantity of hazardous waste.

Highlighting the hazards of waste, the study said: “The quantification of hazardous waste lying at illegal dump sites needs to be assessed before rehabilitation of the dump sites. Further study is required to be carried out to work out detailed strategy for rehabilitation of these illegal dumpsites. Since the quantity of the hazardous waste generated from Delhi is not very high compared with other States and land is also not easily available for the disposal hence it is suggested that the possibility of transferring the hazardous waste to the nearby State should be looked into.''

Through the data it was found that the North-West Delhi is generating maximum land disposal waste which is 62 per cent of the total land disposal waste generated from various industrial locations in Delhi.

About 595 TPA incinerable hazardous waste and about 73 TPA recyclable waste is generated from South Delhi, which is about 34 per cent of the total incinerable waste generation and 12 per cent of the total recyclable waste generation in the city.

Read more...

Commerce Ministry Allows Hazardous Wastes Import

Press Release
Press Release

Government Rules Allow Hazardous Wastes Import

Commerce & Environment Ministry Must Ban Hazardous Waste Trade

Ratify UN’s Ban Amendment to Prohibit Toxic Wastes in the name of recycling & recovery

New Delhi, 23/4/2010: Proposed free trade agreements between Japan, EU and others besides the recent amendments to existing Hazardous Waste Rules promote trade in hazardous waste unmindful of the National Environment Policy that acknowledges how "Environmental factors are estimated as being responsible in some cases for nearly 20 percent of the burden of disease in India".

ToxicsWatch Alliance and other environmental groups have expressed deep concern about the global toxics and health crisis and have urged the government to make every effort to ratify the Basel Ban Amendment (1995) to effectively banning hazardous waste exports from OECD and Liechtenstein to all other countries.

It is alarming to note that hazardous wastes continue to be transferred to India and it is getting harder to control their movements. There is, therefore, a need to implement the letter and spirit of the UN’s hazardous wastes treaty, the Basel Convention was adopted in 1989 and entered into force in 1992. It was created in response to the outrage of developing countries over dumping of toxic waste and hazardous wastes into their countries under the guise of trade and sometimes materials for recycling. The US has not ratified it. It addresses management, disposal and transboundary movement of hazardous waste. Its guiding principles are: waste should be reduced to a minimum; managed in an environmentally sound manner; be treated and disposed of as close as possible to their source of generation; and be minimised at the source. When the original Basel Convention was adopted in 1989, it was primarily an instrument to monitor the transboundary movement of hazardous waste rather than to prevent and reduce them.

Worldwide concern about the transboundary movement and disposal of hazardous wastes was heightened in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The major concern was wastes being exported from industrialized nations for cheap disposal in inadequately prepared sites in developing countries.

This concern led to a new urgency in developing and implementing international controls. It culminated in the landmark global convention under the United Nations to control the transboundary movement of hazardous wastes and their disposal, commonly called the Basel Convention. As of March 2009, 173 Parties including India have ratified the Basel Convention.



At the second Conference of the Parties to the Basel Convention (COP-2), Parties agreed on an immediate ban on the export of hazardous wastes intended from final disposal from OECD to non-OECD countries. The BAN was adopted as an amendment to the Convention (Decision III/1). The parties agreed to ban, by 31 December 1997, the export of wastes intended for recovery and recycling (Decision II/12). However, because Decision II/12 was not incorporated in the text of the Convention itself, the question as to whether it was legally binding or not arose. Therefore, at COP-3 in 1995, it was proposed that the Ban be formally incorporated in the Basel Convention as an amendment (Decision III/1). Decision III/1 does not use the distinction OECD/non-OECD countries. Rather, it bans hazardous wastes exports for final disposal and recycling from what are known as Annex VII countries (Basel Convention Parties that are members of the EU, OECD, Liechtenstein) to non-Annex VII countries (all other Parties to the Convention).



So far 68 countries have ratified it but India is yet to ratify it due to the influence of hazardous waste traders. This leaves the door open for hazardous waste trade. But some 88 countries banned the import of hazardous waste through national laws or regional agreements. One had heard of illegal global trade of hazardous waste, particularly in areas of armed conflict but the same is happening in India even in peace time.



Under the Environment Protection Act, 1986, there is a rule that deals with hazardous wastes to draws explicitly from Basel Convention. This Rule was originally called Hazardous Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 1989. The Environment Ministry proposed to amend it to make it "Hazardous Materials (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules” but due to massive protest from environmental and industry associations, it was notified as Hazardous Waste (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008.



The insertion of the word transboundary movement is a euphemism for hazardous waste trade by terming it as recyclable metal scrap trade or commerce in end- of-life products. Part B of the Rules provides elaborate “List of hazardous wastes applicable for import and export not requiring prior informed consent”. The list includes metal and metal bearing wastes under which iron and steel scrap, Thorium scrap, chromium scrap, rare earth scrap, Zinc scrap; scrap assemblies from electric power generation and several others.



The proposed Free Trade Agreements between Japan, EU and other countries are fraught with the possibility of promoting such trade in hazardous wastes. This has been done in Philippines and other developing countries in pursuance of the principle of transferring harm to less polluted countries enunciated by US government’s chief economist, Lawrence Summers. The drafts of the agreements remain classified. And once the agreement gets signed, it becomes a fait accompli with no role for parliament and the civil society in it at any stage.



Now the Rules have again been amended and renamed as Hazardous Wastes (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Third Amendment Rules, 2010 after it was notified on 30 March, 2010.



Under Rule 23 of it refers to the “Responsibilities of Authorities” which is specified in its Schedule VII that provides the List of Authorities and Corresponding Duties” wherein it is mentioned that Directorate-General of Foreign Trade constituted under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 has a duty to “Grant License for import of hazardous wastes”.



The Hazardous Wastes (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Third Amendment Rules, 2010, notified on March 30, 2010 is contrary to the orders issued by the Supreme Court. The order dated 14th October, 2003 endorsed Basel Convention as well. The now notification is in contempt of the Court and violates the spirit of the Basel treaty by allowing traders to deal with hazardous wastes who are endangering public and ecological health.

Environment ministry feigns ignorance about the India’s original position when it says, "Basel Convention does not ban any imports. It prescribes a Prior Informed consent mechanism for import and export of Hazardous wastes so that the transboundary movement is regulated." Its original position was visible at the First Conference of Parties to the Basel Convention in Uruguay in November 1992, A. Bhattacharja, head of the Indian delegation, pleaded with industrialized countries to stop exporting hazardous waste. "You industrial countries have been asking us to do many things for the global good - to stop cutting down our forests, to stop using your CFCs. Now we are asking you to do something for the global good: keep your own waste."

At the Second Basel Convention Conference of Parties, in March 1994, with India still holding firm, the countries advocating a waste trade ban successfully convinced all parties to the Convention to agree to a ban on all hazardous waste exports from the world's most industrialized countries (members of the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development) to non-industrialized countries. That ban was scheduled to begin immediately for disposal and on January 1, 1998 for wastes destined for recycling facilities overseas.

In 1995, representatives of both the United States and Australia urged them in personal meetings to drop their support for the ban. Prior to the Third Conference of Parties, the Indian government announced it was reconsidering the Basel Ban and might continue to allow hazardous waste imports for recycling into India. The government asserted India could handle imported hazardous waste, especially metal-containing wastes, safely. Kamal Nath, then India's environment minister, explained, "We are against environmentally unfriendly recycling. We are not against the movement of waste, provided the recipient has adequate equipment, facility and the proper process to deal with it."

This overturned the India’s moral and legal position. Government must now reverse the trend and the ratify Ban Amendment.

Earlier, the onus was on the "the exporting country" to provide the test report of analysis of the hazardous waste consignment from a laboratory accredited by the exporting country as per the Rule 16 with regard to “Procedure for import of Hazardous Waste” in Sub-section-5. Now as per Hazardous Wastes (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Second Amendment Rules, 2009 dated 23rd September, 2009. in rule 16, in sub-rule (5), the burden has been put on Director General of Foreign Trade (GDFT), Commerce Ministry.



The order of the Supreme Court was translated into legislation by the Government of India in the Ministry of Environment and Forests. The Hazardous Wastes (Management and Handling) Amendment Rules were notified in 2003.



But these recent amendment notifications signed by Rajiv Gauba, Joint Secretary, Hazardous Substances Management Division (HSMD), Ministry of Environment and Forests have diluted the apex court’s order. This appears to have endorsement of R H Khwaja, the Additional Secretary who responsible for HSMD. Clearly, both Commerce Ministry are working in tandem with Environment Ministry to ensure that hazardous waste trade gets properly legitimized as recyclable, recoverable and reusable scarp metal trade. Earlier, the Ministry of Commerce had abandoned its decision to have a registration scheme for overseas suppliers of scrap as applicable in China.

As per the EXIM Policy, import of second hand goods is restricted and can be imported only with the permission of the DGFT. The DGFT had announced a plan in March 2006 to introduce a registration system covering imports of unshredded ferrous and non-ferrous scrap. This was proposed in the wake of explosions and loss of life linked to the presence of munitions in consignments arriving at Indian ports. Further, DGFT had announced a plan similar to that implemented in China which would have required applicants to demonstrate their financial and business standing.

With the recent amendments from Ministry of Environment, hazardous waste gets classified as recyclable material, and it appears to fall in the category of second hand materials. The DGFT will be able to allow even hazardous waste since as per the new notification a waste becomes deemed non-waste. In this way toxic waste reincarnates itself as a reusable or recyclable product.

When the DGFT had proposed its registration scheme covering imports of scrap, the US Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries and the Indian scarp steel industry had objected to it saying, “Exporters should make sure we don’t repeat the mistakes of the past. We should self-regulate to ensure no explosive materials are shipped.” The DGFT appears to have caved in to their pressure and instead suggested self-regulation to the industry, according to information received from the Bureau of International Recycling (BIR) meeting in Warsaw, Poland during 22-23 October 2007. BIR is the international trade federation representing the world’s recycling industry, covering in particular ferrous and non-ferrous metals etc.

The position of the Ministry of Commerce (the DGFT) is, in effect, in complete contrast to the revised EU Waste Shipment Regulations introduced in July 2007, to which all EU member nations need to comply. The new EU rules now require a tracking document to accompany shipments of non-hazardous materials designated as “waste”, including recyclables. But the scrap industry feels that the complexity of information required by the new EU rules was “totally illogical”, complaining that it did not offer clear environment benefit.

The UPA government's own National Environment Policy (NEP) refers to a range of goals that seem well-intended. They include strategies for cleanup of toxic and hazardous waste dump legacies, developing a national inventory of such dumps, an online monitoring system for movement of hazardous wastes and taking legal measures for addressing emergencies arising out of transportation, handling, and disposal of hazardous wastes.

In drafting the amendments to the hazardous waste rules, all of this has been ignored, and the existing regime has been sought to be dismantled. Oddly enough, the NEP mentions, "the Cabinet or a nominated Committee of the Cabinet may be requested to review the implementation of the National Environment Policy". In line with that, the Ministry's own and proposed amendments to the Hazardous Waste Rules must be reviewed and revised.

For Details: Gopal Krishna, ToxicsWatch Alliance, Mb: 9818089660

E-mail:krishna2777@gmail.com, Web: www.toxicswatch.com Blog: toxicswatch.blogpsot.com

Read more...

Free Trade Agreements to Legitamize Hazardous Waste Trade

Like EU, Japan FTA also a priority

The government seems in a hurry to conclude its key free trade agreements (FTAs) in 2010. Apart from aggressively aiming to conclude the EU FTA this year, not withstanding apprehensions of European parliamentarians or activists from Thailand, India and Brazil, the Japan FTA is also high on the radar.

According to a top official from the commerce ministry, most FTAs have political bearings and this year EU and Japan FTAs are priorities, along with those with countries such as Malaysia.

“In bilateral relations, each year there are certain priorities that are chalked out. But just because the Japan FTA is a priority, does not mean it will be signed, if India’s position is not met,” says the official.

There are strong concerns being expressed about the speed and secrecy with which the government is moving on the FTA front, with no parliamentary debate or discussions on the issue. Last year, New Delhi sealed FTAs with South Korea and the Association of South East Asian Nations (Asean) in a closely-guarded and opaque fashion.

Japan is currently a major trading partner, with India’s exports in 2008-09 standing at $3.02billion, while imports totaling $7.88 billion, as per estimates by the ministry of commerce and industry.
The two countries have also set a target of $20 billion in trade in this financial year, up from $12 billion in 2008-09.

Concerns over the Japan FTA include inclusion of strict intellectual property (IP) provisions, and access to second hand Japanese goods into the Indian market.

However, the official says that India will not agree to any provision which is not congruent with the country’s patent Act, and there will be no space for trade in second hand goods.

But IP and healthcare experts say there is strong pressure from Japan to accede to IP provisions such as data exclusivity, which can delay entry of low cost generic medicines to the market if granted, thereby increasing medicine costs.

Japan is also pushing a demand to make patent infringement a criminal liability. Currently in India, patent infringement is a civil liability, and making it a criminal offence would be a massive discouragement for the local generic medicine companies, says a Delhi-based IP expert.

Other than IP, apprehensions run high that through the FTA, Japan may dump used electronic devices, oil contaminated goods, incinerator ash, waste from chemical industries in India, by pressing to include these products in the list of goods enjoying preferential tariffs.

According to Gopal Krishna, convener, environmental body Toxics Watch, FTAs will legitimise the already existing trade in waste. “Concerns are over inclusion of toxic technologies and other waste as goods or commodities for tariff reduction.”

Priyanka Golikeri / DNA
April 22, 2010

http://www.dnaindia.com/money/report_like-eu-japan-fta-also-a-priority_1374081

Read more...

Scrap pours in unchecked, uncontrolled

India’s waste imports are booming in the shadow of lax controls and feeble security, with ports poorly equipped to handle the amount of scrap that comes flooding in on container ships. But inspection may get tighter, thanks to a US law requiring the scanning of all cargo bound for that country

New Delhi/Bangalore: In 2008-09, India imported 104,742 tonnes of “unsorted waste and scrap” under the “unspecified” country category, according to the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT). Which is another way of saying nobody really knows where the material came from or its exact contents.

The lack of accurate data on India’s import of waste and scrap betrays the lax monitoring of what passes through our border checkpoints. From iron and steel scrap, PVC waste, PET bottle scrap, incinerated municipal ash to waste pharmaceuticals, data show that India imports all kinds of waste from almost everywhere around the world. Even while experts and officials scurry to find the source of radioactive Cobalt 60 that turned up in a Delhi junkyard recently, DGFT classification indicates that there could be hundreds of tonnes of unsorted and uncategorized scrap and waste in the country.

A commerce ministry official, who did not want to be identified, said that imports from unspecified countries could mean that either importers did not provide the information, the forms were mutilated or that imports from a few small countries were clubbed together. The official did not explain what unsorted waste and scrap could constitute.

Tracking or monitoring what enters through ports is equally nebulous, mainly due to lack of hardware, resources and pressure to clear consignments.

None of the 12 Centrally owned ports, with the exception of Jawaharlal Nehru (JN) port, near Mumbai, have scanners capable of detecting arms, ammunition and radioactive substances in containerized cargo imported into India.

These 12 ports account for three-fourths of India’s external trade shipped by sea. Some 95% of India’s overseas trade by volume and 70% by value move by sea.
“There are no facilities at government-owned ports for screening radioactive materials coming into the country in steel containers carrying cargo,” said G.D. Lohani, additional commissioner of customs (imports) at Nhava Sheva near Mumbai that has jurisdiction over containers imported through JN port.

Selective scanning
This, India’s busiest container port, is currently the only one in the country that has installed scanners to screen containers. It has two of them—one mobile scanner operating at the port and the other installed at a container freight station owned by the state-run Central Warehousing Corp. Ltd, some 4km from the port—both operated by the customs department.

“Even with these two scanners, it is not possible to screen all import containers landing at JN port. Scanning is done only selectively,” said Rajan Chaudhary, additional commissioner of customs, looking after imports at Nhava Sheva. For instance, containers originating from Pakistan are examined “one hundred per cent” on arrival.

Only 10% of containers imported through JN port are scanned, chosen at random by the electronic data interchange (EDI) system at the port, a JN port official said.
Export containers are not scanned at all but goods are subjected to inspection and examination by customs and excise officials before they are loaded, the port official said, requesting anonymity because he’s not authorized to speak to the media.

“Proposals are being worked out to install more scanners at JN port as well as other ports. But this equipment is very expensive,” said Chaudhary.

Increased threat perceptions from terrorists have prompted the Union government to speed up efforts to acquire gamma ray scanners that are capable of detecting arms and radioactive substances in containerized cargo, according to a Union shipping ministry official.

The customs department has also sought government approval to install at least two scanners (one mobile and one fixed) each at Chennai, Tuticorin, Cochin, Kandla, Kolkata, Paradip, New Mangalore, Mormugao, Visakhapatnam, Mundra, Pipavav and Mumbai ports. Each such scanner costs between Rs25 crore and Rs50 crore, depending upon specifications.

The shipping ministry last week directed its 12 ports to install radioactive material detectors to check hazardous cargo from entering the country, the ministry official said.

Exclusion risk

Separately, India will have to spend a few thousand crores of rupees to buy and install equipment that scans cargo containers bound for the US from its ports, to comply with a new law in that country that will come into force in 2012.
Without such investments and a change in inspection regimes, Indian ports risk being on the list of those excluded from shipping containers to the US under the Law on Maritime Cargo Scanning Requirements called the Greenlane Maritime Security Act that was signed into law in August 2007.

The US department of homeland security (DHS) has decided to postpone by two years the deadline to scan all US-bound container vessels at foreign ports, as stipulated under the 2007 law.

A DHS official cited non-availability of technology and software that can automatically detect suspicious anomalies in containers, logistical challenges and a shortage of DHS manpower to view images as key reasons for the extensions.
US homeland security secretary Janet Napolitano admitted to Congress recently that the 2012 deadline for all US-bound boxes to be scanned probably cannot be met.
Container terminal operators say that scanning each and every container will hit productivity and lead to delays in clearing cargo.

“But if it is for the safety of citizens and security of the country, we will have to enforce the government’s directive on this,” said Senthil Kumar, terminal manager at the container terminal run by a consortium of ABG Infralogistics Ltd and Singapore’s PSA International Pte Ltd at Kandla in Gujarat.

He, however, said it was the responsibility of the government-owned ports and the customs department to install the scanning equipment.

According to Kumar, scanning import containers as soon as they land would be difficult. “But if the government tells us to receive the containers, store and scan them before delivering to customers, it is fine for us,” he said.

In such a case, there will only be a delay in delivery to customers, but vessel productivity will not be hampered. “The objective of a container terminal is to ensure faster turnaround of vessels,” Kumar said.

Sanitizing cargo
Imports also have to be certified by a third party agency (known as a pre-shipment inspection or PSI certificate), which has to ensure that consignments are free of any type of arms, ammunition, mines, shells, cartridges or radioactive contamination.
There are about 90 international agencies, listed with DGFT, that have been given the authority to examine and certify the cargo that is being imported into India. An importer requires a certificate from any one of them for cargo that’s being imported.

In the rare instances that anomalies are detected in cargo coming into India, these agencies can have their licence cancelled. After a spate of accidents involving scrap metal containing explosives in 2005, DGFT delisted eight such agencies.
Worldwide Logistic, Survey and Inspection Group (WLSI) was one of the companies whose PSI certificates were temporarily derecognized by DGFT for issuing “false certificates” and for the recovery of ammunition from imported metal scrap that they had certified.

For reasons that are unclear, DGFT only derecognized the certificates issued by the US branch of the company (the company also has branches in India, the UK and Australia).

Dinesh Aneja, one of the two “principals of the company”, says DGFT decision in the case is still pending. “They only found a few items that looked like cylinders in the cargo we had certified,” he said.

DGFT has allowed the company to resume operations on the condition that the cargo they certify “will be rechecked on landing in India”, he said.
In the meantime, the company, which according to their website is incorporated in the US, has shut its office there, and now issues certificates from its Australia office.

R.S. Gujral, the director general of foreign trade, was not available for clarifications. Additional director general of foreign trade Amitabh Jain disconnected the call on being asked about the case and refused to answer the phone subsequently.

DGFT has now notified that, from 30 March, shredded metal scrap (exempt earlier) will also need to get this certificate because of the increasing amount of contaminated metal scrap entering the country.

Ranveer Jaidka, who runs a plant that manufactures alloy steel ingots from metal scrap in Mandi Gobindgarh, Punjab, says even in cases of contaminated scrap or accidents due to explosive material, importers hardly have any recourse.

“We usually buy imported scrap through brokers and traders, who deal directly with the exporters in other countries and it is wholly their responsibility, not ours. It is not possible or feasible for us to track them down or take them to court. At max, we can complain,” said Jaidka.

Padmaparna Ghosh, Akshai Jain and P. Manoj

Asit Ranjan Mishra in New Delhi contributed to this story.

http://www.livemint.com/2010/04/23000043/Waste-Management--Scrap-pours.html?h=B

Read more...

Recyclable Material: The U.S.'s Most Controversial Export?

Has our recyclable waste become one of the U.S.'s biggest exports?

It's definitely starting to seem that way. About 25% of all scrap material collected in the U.S. is exported, according to Jerry Powell, who owns three recycling publications including Resource Recycling. Statistics from the U.S. Department of Commerce show that U.S. companies exported $6.8 billion worth of waste, scrap paper and paperboard in 2009, up from $5.2 billion in 2005. Scrap plastics rose from $452.6 million to $827.6 million, while sales of aluminum rose to $2.02 billion from $1.36 billion. One of the U.S.'s biggest customers for recyclable material is China.

"The vast majority of the worth in recycling has been offshore," Powell says, adding that many ships that ship goods to the U.S. return to China with recyclables in their hulls. "They need our raw materials. Huge volumes go to China."

The Environmental Protection Agency seems happy to offload America's recyclable refuse. The agency says it supports legitimate, environmentally-sound recycling practices regardless of where they take place. "Whether materials are recycled domestically or abroad is primarily a function of market demand for specific materials and the existence of recycling operations that are capable of handling specific materials," the agency said in a statement.

E-Wastelands

Environmentalists, however, aren't so accepting of the U.S.'s willingness to ship its discarded goods to shady companies overseas. The recycling of electronics, in particular, has become a problem of growing proportions. About 80% of electronics that Americans send off to recycling plants (known as e-waste) is processed overseas. In 2008, the Government Accountability Office scolded the EPA for allowing the export of discarded electronics to developing countries "where unsafe recycling practices can cause health and environmental problems."

Last month, the watchdog group Basel Action Network accused a Massachusetts company of illegally sending a shipload of computer monitors and other toxic materials to Indonesia. And, in one part of Ghana, hundreds of millions of tons of e-waste is dumped each year. The area has become the world's biggest e-waste dump and has been nicknamed "Sodom and Gomorrah" because the water is among the most polluted on the globe, according to PBS's Frontline.

The e-waste situation is only getting worse as consumer electronic devices become obsolete as quickly as they get introduced to the market. About 400 million devices are discarded annually in the U.S., according to environmental experts. Many devices are just too difficult to re-purpose because they were never designed to be recycled. The glass used in monitors contains lead, while the plastics contain chemicals such as flame retardants that make them too contaminated to be reused.

"Certainly, the amount of e-waste is increasing," says Lauren Roman of the Basel Action Network. "It is the fastest-growing part of the solid waste stream."

The Business of Recycling

Recycling isn't all bad, of course. After all, it is a much more environmentally-friendly approach than just trashing everything. It also helps local governments and taxpayers save money. Trash disposal costs towns money because of tipping fees, which average $35 a ton, that are assessed by landfill operators. And thanks to recycling efforts, those fees are down. The amount of municipal solid waste going to landfills dropped by about 7 million tons from 1990 to 2008.

Meanwhile, local governments actually earn money from recycled goods. After the newspapers and plastic bottles that you've separated and put on the curb are collected, they are sent to a material handling center. These facilities are owned by private haulers such as Waste Management or the local governments themselves. They then sell the materials they collect to customers in both the U.S. and overseas who use it to make new materials that may be recycled many more times.

For some companies, buying the U.S.'s unwanted paper, scraps and other goods has translated into big profits. Take Nine Dragons Paper, the largest container-board maker in China. Its founder, Zhang Yin, got her start shipping waste paper from Los Angeles to China in 1990 and is now one of the wealthiest people in that country.

"It's driven by economics," says Bob Garino, the director of commodities at the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries (ISRI). "[Scrap] is a raw material. It's a commodity. It's a resource ... It saves a lot of money and it's cheaper than virgin material."

"There is a real competition for resources out there," says Ed Skernolis, vice president of recycling at Keep America Beautiful. "The markets have become more sophisticated over the past."

JONATHAN BERR
04/22/10
http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/the-u-s-s-most-controversial-export-recyclable-material/19437533/#

Read more...

Opposition to Uranium Mining from Balpakram Mounts

Opposition to Uranium Mining from Balpakram Mounts

Shillong, April 14 (IANS) The standing committee of the National Board of Wildlife (NBWL) will send a site inspection team to Balpakram National Park in Meghalaya to ascertain people's views on the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) proposal to conduct its exploratory mission in the park.

The DAE has asked the Ministry of Environment and Forests to de-notify an area of eight sq km on the Rongcheng plateau along the environs of Balpakram National Park in Meghalaya South Garo Hills for exploration of uranium ore.

'Survey in the recent years has identified possibility of economical uranium mineralisation in the Rongcheng plateau,' a DAE official said.

He said the DAE wanted to start the exploration exercise to mainly confirm the uranium deposits to meet the country's nuclear energy requirement which will be to the tune of 20,000 MW by 2020.

On Tuesday, the board standing committee meeting, chaired by Minister of Environment and Forests Jairam Ramesh in New Delhi, decided to depute a site inspection team to Balpakram.

'We will be visiting Balpakram later this month to seek the views of the people on the DAE's proposed exploratory drilling of uranium, and submit a report to the standing committee,' NBWL member Bibhab Talukdar told IANS.

The 220 square km Balpakram National Park, apart from being an ecological hotspot, is also a sacred place for the indigenous Garo community in Meghalaya hills. The park is also called land of the eternal death in Garo mythology, as it is believed that the spirits of the dead reside here.

It is also believed by Hindus that Hanuman, while looking for the herb 'sanjeevani' with which to cure Laxman, who was injured in the battle against Ravana, found it in Balpakram.

The area is home to rare and endangered species of wild life which include the hoolock gibbons, slow loris, tigers and elephants.

State Chief Wildlife Warden Sunil Kumar said that the proposed exploration drilling exercise will have no biotic interference in the park.

'Since the drilling exercise is of temporary nature, which will be carried out as a day time activity I don't think it will disturb the landscape or ecology of the area,' Kumar told IANS.

'Once the exercise is completed. The drilling areas will be restored to ensure that there is biotic interference in Balpakram,' he said.

However, several NGOs, including the powerful Garo Students' Union (GSU) has opposed the DAE's proposal to conduct its drilling exercise inside the national park.

'We oppose DAE's move to explore uranium deposits inside the park and we have also decided to ban outsiders and government officials from entering Balpakram,' GSU president Alex Sangma said.

The drilling exercise, he said would surely affect the fragile biodiversity of Balpakram and would be tantamount to encroaching on the tribal rights.

Meanwhile, the GSU will send a letter to Chief Minister D.D. Lapang to oppose any move to de-notify eight sq km the Rongcheng Plateau to facilitate exploration of uranium.

Earlier, the DAE has discovered about 9.22 million tonnes of uranium ore deposits in Meghalaya.

The Uranium Corporation of India Limited (UCIL) plans to produce 375,000 tonnes of uranium ore a year and process 1,500 tonnes of the mineral a day.

It has also proposed to set up a Rs.1,046-crore open-cast uranium mining and processing plant in Meghalaya's West Khasi Hills district, which has an estimated 9.22 million tonnes of uranium ore deposits.
Indo Asian News Service

http://in.news.yahoo.com/43/20100414/812/tnl-wildlife-team-to-visit-before-uraniu.html

NBWL to carry site inspection of Balpakram

GUWAHATI:The National Board for Wild Life (NBWL) has decided to undertake a site inspection of the uranium deposit in Balpakram National Park in the State in response to the proposal submitted by the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) to de-notify an area of 8 square kilometers at Rongcheng Plateau in Balpakram National Park for exploratory uranium mining.

A highly-placed source informed that the Board at a meeting held in New Delhi on April 12, had decided to send a site inspection team led by one of its standing committee members to Balpakram National Park in South Garo Hills district in view of the DAE's proposal.

The go-ahead from the NBWL holds the key for the DAE's bid to explore uranium in Balpakram given that any non-forest activity like exploratory drilling inside a national park requires approval from the NBWL.

The inspection team of the NBWL is expected to give ear to rising protests against the attempt to mine uranium inside the national park area in the State.

The Rongcheng Plateau in Balpakram National Park has been identified as a site for high grade, large tonnage uranium deposits. The total uranium ore deposit in Khasi and Garo Hills region of Meghalaya is estimated to be 9.2 million tonnes and it is of immense importance to the country considering the fact that India has set a target of 20,000 MW of nuclear energy by 2020.Anti-mining forum opposes mining proposal

Meanwhile, the Garo Hills Anti-Mining Forum (GHAMF) has opposed the proposal of the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) to carry out exploratory Uranium mining inside Balpakram National Park.

The forum was of the opinion that drilling activity in whatever form will undoubtedly upset the forest's natural harmony, since the park is home to several endemic species of plants and animals including almost 250 species of birds. Reiterating that the forum would fight tooth and nail against the exploratory drilling, the anti-mining forum said that since the DAE had elaborately justified the exploratory drilling in terms of sourcing uranium for India's nuclear energy needs, it is evident that the exploratory drilling is a precursor to full-scale uranium mining.

It may be mentioned that the Garo Students' Union has already declared its opposition to the project.

Shillong Times
16-04-10

Uranium hunt bid in Meghalaya national park raises storm

Guwahati, April 15 -- A bid to de-notify a part of a sacred national park with a perceived Ramayana connection to facilitate uranium exploration has incensed tribal groups in Meghalaya. The Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) has asked the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) to de-notify 8 sq km inside the 400 sq km Balpakram National Park (BNP) in Meghalaya's South Garo Hills.

The area falls on the ecologically fragile Rongcheng Plateau. The Standing Committee of the National Board of Wildlife (NBWL) under MoEF had in a meeting on 12 December 2008 discussed DAE's proposal for exploratory uranium mining in BNP. DAE justified the need for targeting BNP citing India's national resolve to generate at least 20,000MW of nuclear power by 2020.

The Rongcheng plateau, a recent DAE survey said, is one of the "most potential" sites for "high grade, large tonnage uranium deposits" that requires confirmation through exploratory drilling. According to the Garo Hills Anti-Mining Forum (GHNAMF) - a conglomerate of 11 social and green organizations - locals were kept in the dark about the "clandestine bid" until it moved RTI last year.

"We are not going to allow any mining activities inside BNP," said GHNAMF general secretary Ginseng Sangma. The biodiversity hotspot tag on BNP was not the only reason, he added.

"Balpakram is sacred for the Garo tribal people. We believe the spirit of our ancestors reside in these forests sustaining the tiger, hoolock gibbon and slow loris besides elephants," said fellow activist Vaishali A Sangma.

BNP is holy for Hindus too. They believe Balpakram was the mythological mound from where Hanuman plucked sanjeevani, the life-giving herb, for the wounded Lakshman felled by Meghnad in Ramayana.

But isn't mining activity in and around a national park rejected outright? In the case of uranium, considered a critical mineral, the MoEF can allow its mining in the "larger national interest". DAE officials said things "haven't progressed enough" to invite anger from local organizations.

But NMWL member Bibhab Talukdar said a team is scheduled to visit BNP on April 22 to seek the views of the people on DAE's proposal and submit a report to the standing committee. Notably, another uranium mining proposal in Domiasiat area of West Khasi Hills district in Meghalaya has been hanging fire since 1992.

Several anti-nuke groups have stalled the project citing radiation effect on human health and environmental degradation.

Hindustan Times

GNLA opposed Uranium mining

SHILLONG, Apr 17: The Publicity Secretary, Garo National Liberation Army(GNLA), Gilsang Matgrik Marak alias Aski, in his press statement released to the media strongly condemn the decision of the National Board of Wildlife, (NBWL), to sent a Uranium Site Inspection Team to Balpakram National Park.
Aski added the GNLA warn the State Chief Wildlife Warden, Sunil Kumar to take the project ahead, and advised Kumar to abstain from being a “Dalal” of the Department of Atomic Energy.

In a stronger statement, Aski added, “We are fully prepared to welcome Sunil Kumar and his BOSSES with our 3Bs:- (1)BULLETS, (2)BOMBS, (3)BLOOD if they step into their area.”

GNLA added, they whole-heartedly support the GSU, GHAMF and other NGOs and also request them to prevent this “Day light robbery of our Deadly” natural resource which might bring another ‘CHERNOBYL’ to our land.
Aski added GNLA extended their gratitude to the KSU for supporting the Garo Hills people in this issue.

Lastly, the release calls upon all people of Garo Hills to rise up against any kind of Uranium-Exploration and prevent this impending catastrophe in our land.

Shillong Times 20-04-10

GNLA, FKJGP oppose Balpakram mining

TURA: The Garo National Liberation Army (GNLA) has warned the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) and the Chief Wildlife Warden of the State from going ahead with exploratory work for uranium mining in and around the famous Balpakram National Park (BNP).

Publicity secretary of GNLA, Gilsang Matgrik Marak alias Aski, issued a press release strongly protesting any attempt by authorities to mine uranium in Garo Hills.

"We strongly condemn the National Board of Wildlife (NBWL) to send a Uranium Site Inspection Team to BNP and warn the State Chief Wildlife Warden, Sunil Kumar, against working as an agent of the DAE," threatened the militant outfit.

Supporting the role of the Garo Hills Anti-Muning Forum (GHAMF), GSU, KSU and other NGOs for opposing the proposed mining, the GNLA stated that Garo Hills would turn into another 'Chernobyl' if the project goes ahead.The outfit has also called upon the people of Garo Hills to rise up against any kind of uranium mining and prevent an impending catastrophe.

FKJGP joins bandwagon: Meanwhile, the newly-constituted FKJGP, Garo Hills zone, also opposed the proposed uranium mining inside the national park. The federation has resolved to support the KSU and GSU on their anti-uranium mining campaign and has said they will not allow private or government firm to extract the ore from Garo Hills.

"We will soon submit petitions to both the State and Central governments to immediately stop any proposal for exploratory mining," informed the FKJGP.

-NEWS AGENCIES

Read more...

Recycling what the world throws away

The metal scrap industry in India is booming, having grown at least 27% from 2007-08 to 2008-09

Mandi Gobindgarh (Punjab) / New Delhi: Ranveer Jaidka takes pride in his work. “There is a little bit of steel in everybody’s life,” he says, smilingly appropriating the tag line of an advertisement.

Skipping gingerly across a blackened factory floor, strewn with practically every sort of scrap from spent shock absorbers and refrigerator doors to crank shafts and bent cycle rims, he proclaims that nothing is waste. Jaidka’s factory in Mandi Gobindgarh, Punjab, is one of the 150-odd factories that recycle metal scrap from around the world.

“The WTC (World Trade Center) material was great. High-rise buildings use good quality steel,” he says, adding that many factories in Mandi Gobindgarh had bought the debris of the twin towers after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. As much as 15% of the scrap used at Jaidka’s unit is imported. But for an industry that recycles hundreds of tonnes of imported metal scrap every year, information on and control over what comes in and where it is used, is surprisingly low.

Recently, Cobalt 60 discovered in scrap at a Delhi scrapyard caused an outbreak of radiation poisoning and raised questions on monitoring, worker safety and the environmental impact of imported scrap of all kinds. The Mayapuri episode was, however, not an isolated incident.

On 30 September 2004, a blast ripped through the factory of Bhushan Steel Ltd in Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. Ten workers were killed and a few others injured. An inquiry showed the scrap that Bhushan Steel had imported through a Dubai-based trader contained live ammunition that exploded when it was being melted.

There was a flurry of activity from the administration, new rules were created and the factories in the area inspected. But the situation soon reverted to normal—Bhushan Steel, with a market capitalization of Rs7,580 crore, has become one of the largest importers of steel scrap in the country.

A group of angry workers affiliated with the Centre of Indian Trade Unions gathers at their union office in Sahibabad. Upendra Jha of the union maintains that accidents at steel factories are still common. “There have been three in the last six months,” he says. Most accidents, he adds, are not reported.

Occupational hazards

War zone: Mandi Gobindgarh in Punjab has 150-odd factories that recycle metal scrap from world over and notches an average of two accidents a month. Pradeep Gaur / Mint
War zone: Mandi Gobindgarh in Punjab has 150-odd factories that recycle metal scrap from world over and notches an average of two accidents a month. Pradeep Gaur / Mint
According to Jha, few of the at least 100 industrial units here, which make everything from detergents to paper, have any safety measures for the workers. “70% of them don’t even have any provision for water for the workers,” he points out.
Though the situation is slightly better for a few workers at Gobindgarh near the induction furnaces where they wear plastic glasses and wrap cloth around their faces as protection against the heat and fumes, other waste handlers are not much better off.

Mukesh Kumar, a labourer who unloads scrap from containers, said: “How would we know what is inside? We will only know after we open it to unload.”

The steel scrap that comes into these factories is an unsorted mix of steel, contaminants such as lead and cadmium, and the occasional unexploded ordnance. Shock absorbers also demand special handling. “Shockers have pressurized motor oil inside them. If not removed, they can explode in the furnaces,” says Jaidka. The oil that’s removed is sometimes used in the furnace, he says. The US Environmental Protection Agency categorizes used motor oil as hazardous waste.

Smoke and emissions from the approximately 600 chimneys in Gobindgarh contain high levels of air pollutants. A 2007 study on air pollution and cardiovascular health published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health reported increased levels of different pollutants and the higher prevalence of cardiovascular symptoms in Mandi Gobindgarh than in the neighbouring non-industrial town of Morinda.

War-zone scrap

Mandi Gobindgarh has also had its own share of explosions due to live ammunition mixed in with imported metal scrap. Lalit Mohan Sharma, manager at Prem Steel and Metals Pvt. Ltd in Gobindgarh, says that scrap from war-torn countries is the cheapest. “In that sense, Saddam did a good thing,” he laughs.

Jaidka adds that some plants have stopped importing from war zones because of the unexploded ammunition and missiles in the scrap leading to accidents. “There are a few stray cases now here and there. If found, they usually dump it in the nearby river,” he says. Jitender Singh Bhatti, deputy director for factories in the district, however, says the local administration issues a quarterly notification asking factories to inform the local police and administration in case live shells
or bombs are found.

Scrap for Jaidka’s unit comes mainly from South Africa and Dubai. Dubai undergoes massive construction and de-construction, which generates large amounts of steel and iron scrap.

The material is sorted manually on the factory premises by contract labourers, who form the bulk of the workforce.

According to data available with the Ghaziabad district administration, Bhushan Steel has permission to employ up to 500 labourers.

Workers say, however, that it employs nearly 4,000.

Bhushan Steel refused to let a Mint reporter into its factory and did not respond to telephone and email queries.

On paper at least, the factories are subject to regular inspections. The first time Mint spoke to him, Y.P. Singh, deputy director (factories), Ghaziabad, said they were inspected twice a year. “The factories here have installed machines to scan scrap,” he maintained.

But on a subsequent occasion he clarified that the machines installed at the units were just “presses” that compressed the scrap so that parts such as car shock absorbers did not explode when they were melted. How is unexploded ordinance dealt with? “You will have to ask the factory owners,” he said.

End of inspector raj
What have the periodic factory inspections shown? “The state government issued a circular in January 2010, which put an end to the inspections. I think the idea was to end the inspector raj that factory owners were complaining about,” he said. “We can now only inspect a factory with the permission of the district magistrate, and that too if we have credible evidence.”

The Punjab department of industries has a different story to tell. Bhatti says that his district has not employed a single inspector since 1996.

“Punjab has about 20-22 districts with only six officers for inspections. Every officer is in charge of four to five districts. We can maximum do 20 inspections per month and Mandi alone has 600 factories. I am in charge of 1,500 factories. You can imagine what that means. One factory probably gets inspected once in five years,” explains Bhatti, whose department is responsible for labour welfare, health and safety. He adds that the International Labour Organization recommends 150 factories maximum to one inspector to ensure adequate monitoring. Gobindgarh notches an average of two accidents a month.

The situation is not very different at the ship-breaking yards at Alang in Gujarat. It’s boom time there, with over 190 ships beached at the yards and at least 60,000 migrant workers busy dismantling them.

‘It’s a joke’
There have been 12 major accidents in the last four months alone, the last being a fire on 1 April that killed two workers. “What do you expect,” asks Rahul Tripathi, secretary of the Alang Sosiya Ship Recycling and General Workers Association. “90% of the workers here are illiterate and nearly all of them are untrained.” Workers are required to have training cards issued by the Gujarat Maritime Board. But according to Tripathi, these are issued after a day or two of training. “It’s a joke. The minimum training period for a general worker should be 15 days, and 25 days for a specialist,” he says.

Statistics on industrial safety in India are very unreliable. The Labour Institute and the Directorate General, Factory Advice Service and Labour Institutes (DGFASLI), both government-run bodies, are responsible for compiling them, but they’re dependent on states to provide them with data. “Over the last 30 years, several states like West Bengal, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and Gujarat have consistently not submitted industrial workers accident data,” says A.K. Chakraborti, director general of DGFASLI. “There are many shortcomings in our data systems.”

The metal scrap industry in India is booming, having grown at least 27% from 2007-08 to 2008-09 (from 3.5 million tonnes, or mt, to 4.4 mt, from more than 75 countries). Mandi Gobindgarh, which Jaidka says supplies approximately 6% of India’s secondary steel market, is at the heart of this expansion. Bhatti says he gets applications for at least three-four new units every month and 30-35 units are on the waiting list, pending electricity connections.

“This builds bridges, towers and your homes,” Jaidka yells over the din of the furnace. Wouldn’t it be more convenient if he lived near his factory? “Who can live here? It’s too polluted.”

padma.g@livemint.com
Padmaparna Ghosh and Akshai Jain
http://www.livemint.com/Articles/PrintArticle.aspx?artid=FEC99C58-4D6E-11DF-AB28-000B5DABF613

Read more...