Massive Legal Win for Kebaowek First Nation And Allies Against Proposed
Nuclear Waste Dump in Canada
-
Federal Court of Appeal Upholds Victory for Kebaowek First Nation
and Allies in “Species at Risk” Case Against Chalk River Nuclear Waste
Project Kebaow...
Latest Post
From waste to worse, possibly
Written By krishna on Thursday, June 30, 2011 | 3:40 AM
Note:A voice of sanity in Okhla, Anant Trivedi is the President Ishwar Nagar Residents Welfare Association and a senior member of Okhla Anti-Incineration Committee. He is a chartered engineer. In an article From waste to worse, possibly, he reveals the many faces of environmental lawlessness in Okhla, South Delhi. 
ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA) has benefited from his valuable suggestions for Delhi's anti-incinerator campaign. TWA looks forward to his sagely advice in the matter of proposed waste to energy incinerators in Gazipur and Narela-Bawana besides the OP Jindal's hazardous incinerator plant in the vicinity of residential areas.
Jindal Ecopolis (Timarpur-Okhla Municipal Solid Waste Management Company Pvt. Ltd, 100 % subsidiary of O P Jindal Group’s Jindal ITF Urban Infrastructure Ltd.) has been awarded a 25 year long concession by New Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC) and Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) for setting up of a Dioxins emitting and toxic garbage burning project. As part of the concession, NDMC and MCD will provide solid municipal waste the project in thickly populated Okhla region. Allard M Nooy, CEO of Jindal Ecopolis, infrastructure arm of Jindal SAW Ltd (owned by Prithviraj Jindal, one of the four sons of late OP Jindal, the industrialist politician) has failed to provide technical details of the plant to the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) despite repeated reminders. CPCB's report is keenly awaited.
Allard Nooy is Chief Executive Officer Jindal Water Infrastructure Ltd (Jindal Aquasource Ltd) and Jindal Urban Infrastructure Ltd. 
Both companies are part of the OP Jindal Group, a US$ 15 billion conglomerate and appear to be referred together as Jindal Ecopolis.
Gopal Krishna
ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA)
From waste to worse, possibly
ONE OF THE WORLD’S BIGGEST INCINERATORS IS TO COME UP IN SOUTH DELHI TO GENERATE ENERGY FROM WASTE. BUT WILL IT POLLUTE PROFUSELY INSTEAD?
WHEN ENVIRONMENT minister Jairam Ramesh met angry citizens some weeks ago at the site of the proposed Waste-to-Energy plant in Okhla, south Delhi, he mentioned there had been no public consultation of the project and that the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) had not been approached for the technology clearance. The plant is estimated to cost Rs 200 crore and is meant to convert about 2,000 tonnes of waste in Delhi to 16 MW power a day. It is among the world’s largest incinerators that deals with everyday waste. Then, at a meeting with residents of the area on April 3, Ramesh initiated a technical review committee consisting of IIT experts, persons from Europe with experience of waste incineration projects, and nominees of the community living around the project. Ramesh said the review would take as much time as necessary to vet all aspects of the proposed technology, and the plant would not be given operational clearance until all shortfalls are addressed to the satisfaction of the CPCB as well as the resident’s nominees.
Three weeks later, on April 26, a meeting was called of various experts at the CPCB head office. After a hearty meal, the programme started with Jindal Ecopolis (JE), the promoter who was given time to explain their proposal. JE made a glossy presentation with no technology details. This was from a firm who repeatedly said they had all clearances to implement the Okhla plant, which is a Public Private Partnership (PPP) project of the Delhi government. They said they were only the implementers, in other words they were there merely to provide an overview of the proposal and not to seek technology clearance. Thus, JE is confident of the Delhi governments’ support in pushing this project through and does not recognise the authority vested by law in the CPCB.
This raises an interesting question. What is the role of the environment ministry? Is it to okay proposals by big industrialists with friendly politicians? Or is it to carry out its duties as mandated by Indian law? Ramesh has stated that he is under pressure to clear projects that have gone some distance. Does this mean he has to overlook potential violation of environmental laws?
There is also another question. The Delhi government has been moving polluting industries out of Delhi, some of them micro, and displacing employees. Yet, it is determined to get a highly polluting waste plant in the midst of a thickly populated area. They have also said the land allocated to this plant is designated as a municipal solid waste landfill site in the Master Plan 2021. This is not correct. In a recent proposal submitted by the Timarpur Okhla Waste Management Company Limited to the environment ministry to increase capacity from 16 MW to 20.9 MW, the land has been described as ‘industrial’. Therefore, these may be attempts to mislead the ministry and the general public that the land is appropriate for such activities. If this project is authorised for Delhi, it could become a great carbon credit model for most towns in India.
AROUND THE Okhla plant, the dominant community is Muslim and they are mostly struggling to keep body and soul together. They do not have time even to go and argue with elected representatives. They cannot afford healthcare if they fall ill from the squalor they exist in. The elected MLA for the area is Asif Mohammad Khan. He is an aggressive supporter of every cause that helps him win the support of the community. He is forever telling the community that he is with them all the way and would make sure no harm comes their way. People believe him when he says this.
Interestingly, Asif helped lay the foundation stone to the waste plant and recently inaugurated the construction of a road to the factory. So, on the one hand he is making false promises to the community and raising their hopes that he will protect them, and on the other hand he makes sure the Congress coalition does not get upset with him. There are enough signs that the residents of Batla House, Zakir Nagar, Haji colony and other localities in the area realise that today’s politicians cannot be trusted.
If our politicians are not working for us, we have to enforce accountability. We must demand to see a monthly account of how our money is being spent, and how the promises made during election time are being delivered on. Some fault therefore lies with those who cast their votes in hope and wait the next five years for their elected leaders to deliver on promises. In the process, the people are mostly the losers while politicians and their coteries seem to progress. Therefore, the community might need to be firm and refuse to let glib politicians work in the area until they deliver on what they promised.
While there is overwhelming evidence that plants of this type produce toxic gases, residues and particles that can be breathed in, the Okhla plant is being set up barely hundred metres away from the nearest established residences. Yet, the Delhi government, the Delhi Pollution Control Committee and the project developer have been saying that implementation of this project would not cause any negative impact to people living around the site. The project proponents have never projected or shown the total quantity of various pollutants that would come out from this project. Perhaps this is an attempt to avoid opposition from the people and to get various environmental clearances.
The Okhla plant will emit huge hazards into the atmosphere and nothing that the promoters of the plant or Delhi’s political leadership say would save us from this. If we believe the project developer, no pollutants would be released from this plant. They only talk about foul smell and structural design but they don’t mention or acknowledge the serious pollutants that any such waste incinerator would emit. But a noted expert, Professor Paul Connett, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Chemistry, St. Lawrence University, New York and Director of the American Environmental Health Studies Project, has different views.
He said as recently as February 4, 2011, “To state that a 2,000-tonne per day incinerator will not put out any pollution defies both the laws of physics and the laws of common sense.” Municipal waste incinerators not only pose inherent and unavoidable hazards to public safety, especially for those living close to such facilities but evidence from around the world is strong that they are often run badly. The situation is made worse by weak regulators with little appetite for enforcing public safety. Furthermore, there is no such modern technology available or under development that can eliminate all toxic pollutants generated during a combustion process. The only way appears to be for the community to wake up, unite and collectively take on the government.
Anant Trivedi
trivedianant@gmail.com
29 June 2011
Tehelka
http://www.tehelka.com/story_main50.asp?filename=Ws29062011FromWaste.asp
ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA) has benefited from his valuable suggestions for Delhi's anti-incinerator campaign. TWA looks forward to his sagely advice in the matter of proposed waste to energy incinerators in Gazipur and Narela-Bawana besides the OP Jindal's hazardous incinerator plant in the vicinity of residential areas. Jindal Ecopolis (Timarpur-Okhla Municipal Solid Waste Management Company Pvt. Ltd, 100 % subsidiary of O P Jindal Group’s Jindal ITF Urban Infrastructure Ltd.) has been awarded a 25 year long concession by New Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC) and Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) for setting up of a Dioxins emitting and toxic garbage burning project. As part of the concession, NDMC and MCD will provide solid municipal waste the project in thickly populated Okhla region. Allard M Nooy, CEO of Jindal Ecopolis, infrastructure arm of Jindal SAW Ltd (owned by Prithviraj Jindal, one of the four sons of late OP Jindal, the industrialist politician) has failed to provide technical details of the plant to the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) despite repeated reminders. CPCB's report is keenly awaited.
Allard Nooy is Chief Executive Officer Jindal Water Infrastructure Ltd (Jindal Aquasource Ltd) and Jindal Urban Infrastructure Ltd. 
Both companies are part of the OP Jindal Group, a US$ 15 billion conglomerate and appear to be referred together as Jindal Ecopolis.Gopal Krishna
ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA)
From waste to worse, possibly
ONE OF THE WORLD’S BIGGEST INCINERATORS IS TO COME UP IN SOUTH DELHI TO GENERATE ENERGY FROM WASTE. BUT WILL IT POLLUTE PROFUSELY INSTEAD?
WHEN ENVIRONMENT minister Jairam Ramesh met angry citizens some weeks ago at the site of the proposed Waste-to-Energy plant in Okhla, south Delhi, he mentioned there had been no public consultation of the project and that the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) had not been approached for the technology clearance. The plant is estimated to cost Rs 200 crore and is meant to convert about 2,000 tonnes of waste in Delhi to 16 MW power a day. It is among the world’s largest incinerators that deals with everyday waste. Then, at a meeting with residents of the area on April 3, Ramesh initiated a technical review committee consisting of IIT experts, persons from Europe with experience of waste incineration projects, and nominees of the community living around the project. Ramesh said the review would take as much time as necessary to vet all aspects of the proposed technology, and the plant would not be given operational clearance until all shortfalls are addressed to the satisfaction of the CPCB as well as the resident’s nominees.
Three weeks later, on April 26, a meeting was called of various experts at the CPCB head office. After a hearty meal, the programme started with Jindal Ecopolis (JE), the promoter who was given time to explain their proposal. JE made a glossy presentation with no technology details. This was from a firm who repeatedly said they had all clearances to implement the Okhla plant, which is a Public Private Partnership (PPP) project of the Delhi government. They said they were only the implementers, in other words they were there merely to provide an overview of the proposal and not to seek technology clearance. Thus, JE is confident of the Delhi governments’ support in pushing this project through and does not recognise the authority vested by law in the CPCB.
This raises an interesting question. What is the role of the environment ministry? Is it to okay proposals by big industrialists with friendly politicians? Or is it to carry out its duties as mandated by Indian law? Ramesh has stated that he is under pressure to clear projects that have gone some distance. Does this mean he has to overlook potential violation of environmental laws?
There is also another question. The Delhi government has been moving polluting industries out of Delhi, some of them micro, and displacing employees. Yet, it is determined to get a highly polluting waste plant in the midst of a thickly populated area. They have also said the land allocated to this plant is designated as a municipal solid waste landfill site in the Master Plan 2021. This is not correct. In a recent proposal submitted by the Timarpur Okhla Waste Management Company Limited to the environment ministry to increase capacity from 16 MW to 20.9 MW, the land has been described as ‘industrial’. Therefore, these may be attempts to mislead the ministry and the general public that the land is appropriate for such activities. If this project is authorised for Delhi, it could become a great carbon credit model for most towns in India.
AROUND THE Okhla plant, the dominant community is Muslim and they are mostly struggling to keep body and soul together. They do not have time even to go and argue with elected representatives. They cannot afford healthcare if they fall ill from the squalor they exist in. The elected MLA for the area is Asif Mohammad Khan. He is an aggressive supporter of every cause that helps him win the support of the community. He is forever telling the community that he is with them all the way and would make sure no harm comes their way. People believe him when he says this.
Interestingly, Asif helped lay the foundation stone to the waste plant and recently inaugurated the construction of a road to the factory. So, on the one hand he is making false promises to the community and raising their hopes that he will protect them, and on the other hand he makes sure the Congress coalition does not get upset with him. There are enough signs that the residents of Batla House, Zakir Nagar, Haji colony and other localities in the area realise that today’s politicians cannot be trusted.
If our politicians are not working for us, we have to enforce accountability. We must demand to see a monthly account of how our money is being spent, and how the promises made during election time are being delivered on. Some fault therefore lies with those who cast their votes in hope and wait the next five years for their elected leaders to deliver on promises. In the process, the people are mostly the losers while politicians and their coteries seem to progress. Therefore, the community might need to be firm and refuse to let glib politicians work in the area until they deliver on what they promised.
While there is overwhelming evidence that plants of this type produce toxic gases, residues and particles that can be breathed in, the Okhla plant is being set up barely hundred metres away from the nearest established residences. Yet, the Delhi government, the Delhi Pollution Control Committee and the project developer have been saying that implementation of this project would not cause any negative impact to people living around the site. The project proponents have never projected or shown the total quantity of various pollutants that would come out from this project. Perhaps this is an attempt to avoid opposition from the people and to get various environmental clearances.
The Okhla plant will emit huge hazards into the atmosphere and nothing that the promoters of the plant or Delhi’s political leadership say would save us from this. If we believe the project developer, no pollutants would be released from this plant. They only talk about foul smell and structural design but they don’t mention or acknowledge the serious pollutants that any such waste incinerator would emit. But a noted expert, Professor Paul Connett, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Chemistry, St. Lawrence University, New York and Director of the American Environmental Health Studies Project, has different views.
He said as recently as February 4, 2011, “To state that a 2,000-tonne per day incinerator will not put out any pollution defies both the laws of physics and the laws of common sense.” Municipal waste incinerators not only pose inherent and unavoidable hazards to public safety, especially for those living close to such facilities but evidence from around the world is strong that they are often run badly. The situation is made worse by weak regulators with little appetite for enforcing public safety. Furthermore, there is no such modern technology available or under development that can eliminate all toxic pollutants generated during a combustion process. The only way appears to be for the community to wake up, unite and collectively take on the government.
Anant Trivedi
trivedianant@gmail.com
29 June 2011
Tehelka
http://www.tehelka.com/story_main50.asp?filename=Ws29062011FromWaste.asp
Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources signed by EU and Member States
Written By krishna on Wednesday, June 29, 2011 | 10:43 PM
Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources signed by EU and Member States
European Union and 12 Member States sign the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic
Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization
Montreal, 23 June 2011 – The number of signatories to a new international treaty on access to and the sharing of benefits from the utilization of genetic resources today jumped to 37 with the signature of the European Union (EU) and 12 of its member states.
At a ceremony in New York, signatures to the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization (ABS) to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) were received from Austria, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Sweden, United Kingdom and the European Union.
The Nagoya Protocol on ABS is a supplementary agreement to the CBD. It provides a transparent legal framework for the effective implementation of one of the three objectives of the CBD: the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources. The Nagoya Protocol on ABS was adopted on 29 October 2010 in Nagoya, Japan, and will enter into force 90 days after receipt of the fiftieth instrument of ratification.
Genetic resources, whether from plant, animal or micro-organisms, are used for various purposes, ranging from basic research to the development of products. Users of genetic resources include research institutes, universities and private companies operating in various sectors such as pharmaceuticals, agriculture, horticulture, cosmetics and biotechnology. Benefits derived from genetic resources may include the sharing of the results of research and development carried out on genetic resources, the transfer of technologies that make use of those resources, participation in biotechnological research activities, or monetary benefits arising from the commercialization of products based on genetic resources, such as pharmaceuticals.
Mr. Csaba K rösi, signing on behalf of Hungary, which currently holds the presidency of the EU, said, "There is a great task ahead of us to bring the Nagoya Protocol to life and move this new treaty forward on the path to its wise and proper implementation as soon as possible.
The signatures taking place today are among the important first steps of this process. The signing of the Protocol clearly shows our commitment to put the third objective of the CBD into practice.” Dr. Ahmed Djoghlaf, CBD Executive Secretary, said: "Today’s signatures demonstrate the strong commitment to the Nagoya Protocol from all regions of the world.”
"This is a commitment to not only the planet, but also a sustainable future for our children. I urge others to sign and ratify the Protocol, and look forward to the entry into force of this unique legal instrument by the next meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, in India in 2012.”
The list of signatories to the Protocol is available on the Convention on Biological Diversity website at: www.cbd.int/abs/nagoya-protocol/signatories/ Pictures of the signing ceremony can be found on the website of the United Nations Treaty Collection: http://treaties.un.org/
In early June, over 400 participants from more than 140 countries met in Montreal, Canada, at the first meeting of the Intergovernmental Committee for the Nagoya Protocol, to lay the foundations for implementation. Results of this meeting are available at: www.cbd.int/absicnp1/insession/
About the Nagoya Protocol
Heads of State and Government at the World Summit on Sustainable Development (Johannesburg, September 2002) first recognized the need for an international regime to promote and safeguard the fair and equitable sharing of benefits and called for negotiations to be carried out within the framework of the Convention on Biological Diversity. The Conference of the Parties to the Convention responded at its seventh meeting, in 2004, by mandating its Ad Hoc Open-ended Working Group on Access and Benefit-sharing to elaborate and negotiate an international regime on access to genetic resources and benefit-sharing to effectively implement Articles 15 (Access to Genetic Resources) and 8(j) (Traditional Knowledge) of the Convention and its three objectives. The Nagoya Protocol was adopted on 29 October 2010 at the tenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity in Nagoya, Japan.
The Nagoya Protocol is a landmark agreement in the international governance of biodiversity and is relevant for a variety of commercial and non-commercial sectors involved in the use and exchange of genetic resources. The Nagoya Protocol is based on the fundamental principles of access and benefit-sharing enshrined in the CBD. These principles are based on potential users of genetic resources obtaining the prior informed consent (PIC) of the country in which the genetic resource is located before accessing the resource, and negotiating and agreeing on the terms and conditions of access and use of this resource through the establishment of mutually agreed terms (MAT). This agreement includes the sharing of benefits arising from the use of the resource with the provider as a prerequisite for access to the genetic resource and its use. Conversely, countries, when acting as providers of genetic resources, should provide fair and non-arbitrary rules and procedures for access to their genetic resources. For more information on the Protocol, visit www.cbd.int/abs
The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)
Opened for signature at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, and entering into force in December 1993, the Convention on Biological Diversity is an international treaty for the conservation of biodiversity, the sustainable use of the components of biodiversity and the equitable sharing of the benefits derived from the use of genetic resources. With 193 Parties, the Convention has near universal participation among countries. The Convention seeks to address all threats to biodiversity and ecosystem services, including threats from climate change, through scientific assessments, the development of tools, incentives and processes, the transfer of technologies and good practices and the full and active involvement of relevant stakeholders including indigenous and local communities, youth, NGOs, women and the business community. The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety is a subsidiary agreement to the Convention. It seeks to protect biological diversity from the potential risks posed by living modified organisms resulting from modern biotechnology. To date, 160 countries plus the European Union have ratified the Cartagena Protocol. The Secretariat of the Convention and its Cartagena Protocol is located in Montreal, Canada.
For more information visit www.cbd.int
For additional information, please contact: David Ainsworth on +1 514 287 7025 or at david.ainsworth@cbd.int; or
Johan Hedlund on +1 514 287 6670 or at johan.hedlund@cbd.int.
URL: http://www.business-biodiversity.eu/default.asp?Menue=49&News=447
European Union and 12 Member States sign the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic
Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization
Montreal, 23 June 2011 – The number of signatories to a new international treaty on access to and the sharing of benefits from the utilization of genetic resources today jumped to 37 with the signature of the European Union (EU) and 12 of its member states.
At a ceremony in New York, signatures to the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization (ABS) to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) were received from Austria, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Sweden, United Kingdom and the European Union.
The Nagoya Protocol on ABS is a supplementary agreement to the CBD. It provides a transparent legal framework for the effective implementation of one of the three objectives of the CBD: the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources. The Nagoya Protocol on ABS was adopted on 29 October 2010 in Nagoya, Japan, and will enter into force 90 days after receipt of the fiftieth instrument of ratification.
Genetic resources, whether from plant, animal or micro-organisms, are used for various purposes, ranging from basic research to the development of products. Users of genetic resources include research institutes, universities and private companies operating in various sectors such as pharmaceuticals, agriculture, horticulture, cosmetics and biotechnology. Benefits derived from genetic resources may include the sharing of the results of research and development carried out on genetic resources, the transfer of technologies that make use of those resources, participation in biotechnological research activities, or monetary benefits arising from the commercialization of products based on genetic resources, such as pharmaceuticals.
Mr. Csaba K rösi, signing on behalf of Hungary, which currently holds the presidency of the EU, said, "There is a great task ahead of us to bring the Nagoya Protocol to life and move this new treaty forward on the path to its wise and proper implementation as soon as possible.
The signatures taking place today are among the important first steps of this process. The signing of the Protocol clearly shows our commitment to put the third objective of the CBD into practice.” Dr. Ahmed Djoghlaf, CBD Executive Secretary, said: "Today’s signatures demonstrate the strong commitment to the Nagoya Protocol from all regions of the world.”
"This is a commitment to not only the planet, but also a sustainable future for our children. I urge others to sign and ratify the Protocol, and look forward to the entry into force of this unique legal instrument by the next meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, in India in 2012.”
The list of signatories to the Protocol is available on the Convention on Biological Diversity website at: www.cbd.int/abs/nagoya-protocol/signatories/ Pictures of the signing ceremony can be found on the website of the United Nations Treaty Collection: http://treaties.un.org/
In early June, over 400 participants from more than 140 countries met in Montreal, Canada, at the first meeting of the Intergovernmental Committee for the Nagoya Protocol, to lay the foundations for implementation. Results of this meeting are available at: www.cbd.int/absicnp1/insession/
About the Nagoya Protocol
Heads of State and Government at the World Summit on Sustainable Development (Johannesburg, September 2002) first recognized the need for an international regime to promote and safeguard the fair and equitable sharing of benefits and called for negotiations to be carried out within the framework of the Convention on Biological Diversity. The Conference of the Parties to the Convention responded at its seventh meeting, in 2004, by mandating its Ad Hoc Open-ended Working Group on Access and Benefit-sharing to elaborate and negotiate an international regime on access to genetic resources and benefit-sharing to effectively implement Articles 15 (Access to Genetic Resources) and 8(j) (Traditional Knowledge) of the Convention and its three objectives. The Nagoya Protocol was adopted on 29 October 2010 at the tenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity in Nagoya, Japan.
The Nagoya Protocol is a landmark agreement in the international governance of biodiversity and is relevant for a variety of commercial and non-commercial sectors involved in the use and exchange of genetic resources. The Nagoya Protocol is based on the fundamental principles of access and benefit-sharing enshrined in the CBD. These principles are based on potential users of genetic resources obtaining the prior informed consent (PIC) of the country in which the genetic resource is located before accessing the resource, and negotiating and agreeing on the terms and conditions of access and use of this resource through the establishment of mutually agreed terms (MAT). This agreement includes the sharing of benefits arising from the use of the resource with the provider as a prerequisite for access to the genetic resource and its use. Conversely, countries, when acting as providers of genetic resources, should provide fair and non-arbitrary rules and procedures for access to their genetic resources. For more information on the Protocol, visit www.cbd.int/abs
The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)
Opened for signature at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, and entering into force in December 1993, the Convention on Biological Diversity is an international treaty for the conservation of biodiversity, the sustainable use of the components of biodiversity and the equitable sharing of the benefits derived from the use of genetic resources. With 193 Parties, the Convention has near universal participation among countries. The Convention seeks to address all threats to biodiversity and ecosystem services, including threats from climate change, through scientific assessments, the development of tools, incentives and processes, the transfer of technologies and good practices and the full and active involvement of relevant stakeholders including indigenous and local communities, youth, NGOs, women and the business community. The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety is a subsidiary agreement to the Convention. It seeks to protect biological diversity from the potential risks posed by living modified organisms resulting from modern biotechnology. To date, 160 countries plus the European Union have ratified the Cartagena Protocol. The Secretariat of the Convention and its Cartagena Protocol is located in Montreal, Canada.
For more information visit www.cbd.int
For additional information, please contact: David Ainsworth on +1 514 287 7025 or at david.ainsworth@cbd.int; or
Johan Hedlund on +1 514 287 6670 or at johan.hedlund@cbd.int.
URL: http://www.business-biodiversity.eu/default.asp?Menue=49&News=447
Indian Government Paves Way for Ban on Chrysotile Asbestos, terms it Hazardous Chemical
Written By mediavigil on Thursday, June 23, 2011 | 6:20 AM
Press Release
Quebec & Canada Condemned for Support of Chrysotile Asbestos Industry at UN Meet
Indian Government Paves Way for Ban on Chrysotile Asbestos, terms it Hazardous Chemical
Rotterdam Alliance, Calls Canada, Cancer Culprit, a Pariah State
Is Bihar’s Deputy Chief Minister Listening?
New Delhi/Patna: Ban Asbestos Network of India (BANI) Condemns Quebec and Canadian Government’s anti-public health, anti-environment and anti-worker stance in the matter of list of Chrysotile Asbestos as a hazardous chemical. BANI appreciates Government of India for taking this long delayed step to join the international consensus against chrysotile asbestos. In a statement, Rotterdam Alliance states that the industry prefers that people are not given the information that chrysotile asbestos is hazardous.
Chrysotile (serpentine forms of asbestos) is being proposed to be included in the Prior Informed Consent (PIC) procedure as an industrial chemical at the UN's fifth meeting of Rotterdam Convention on the PIC Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade in the conference. Its listing is based on the final regulatory actions to ban or severely restrict its use due to its impacts on health as notified by Australia, Chile and the European Union.
Amidst growing incessant demand for ban on trade, manufacture and use of chrysotile asbestos, Government of India’s delegation in Geneva, Switzerland announced that they had reconsidered their opposition and would support listing of chrysotile asbestos in the UN list of hazardous chemicals.
BANI, an alliance of public health researchers, human rights and labour groups welcome Government of India’s support the inclusion of Chrysotile (white) asbestos in Annex III (PIC list).
It is indeed a dramatic breakthrough that would pave the way for ending the deadlock over the inclusion of Chrysotile Asbestos in the PIC list and eventually for complete ban on the killer fibers. Approximately 50, 000 people die every year in India due to asbestos related cancer. But so far Government of India has failed to take a pro-people’s health position and a scientific stand on the import of chrysotile asbestos whose mining is technically banned in India.
The Chemical Review Committee of the Rotterdam Convention has recommended inclusion of Chrysotile asbestos twice. It is now being considered for the third time. Under the negative influence of Canada and other chrysotile asbestos producing countries, Government of India has been blocking its inclusion citing industry sponsored studies since 2004. So far it has been according priority to the profit of chrysotile asbestos companies instead of protecting environmental and occupational health.
Indian delegation also agreed to chair a small group to continue discussions with opponents to listing about their specific concerns. Canada has confirmed that it would not join any consensus on listing chrysotile asbestos.
A small drafting group was formed to draft an accompanying decision to one listing chrysotile asbestos in Annex III, to request parties and all other stakeholders to promote information exchange on measures to minimize risks and on alternative substances in order to facilitate potential agreement. When the small drafting group announced no consensus had been reached on listing chrysotile asbestos, decision was deferred at least till the conclusion of the COP5 on 24th June. BANI hopes that the delegates at COP5 will be able to persuade Canada to change its position before the meeting concludes.
Under the theme “Rotterdam COP5: PICturing Chemical Safety, PICturing Informed Decisions”, the conference is considering measures to strengthen implementation of the globe’s first line of defence for chemical safety.
The Rotterdam Convention entered into force in 2004. It built on the voluntary Prior Informed Consent, or PIC, procedure, initiated by UNEP and FAO in 1989, which gave way to the formalities of the Convention. The Rotterdam Convention was adopted in 1998 and entered into force in 2004 and makes the PIC Procedure legally binding.
In order for COP5 to be deemed successful, it is very important that chrysotile asbestos is listed on Annex III of the convention. If that happens, "Prior Informed Consent" will become mandatory before chrysotile asbestos producing countries such as Canada and Russia can export this killer mineral fiber.
Environmental groups like BANI have been making incessant demand for the listing of Chrysotile Asbestos in UN List of Hazardous Chemicals List. India's National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has admitted an application and registered a case with regard to the phase out of the chrysotile asbestos based industries and its listing as a hazardous chemical, a fact which has wrongly been disputed by Bihar’s Deputy Chief Minister, Sushil Kumar Modi. The UN Meet on Hazardous Chemicals vindicates BANI’s position which has been demanding closure of chrysotile asbestos based plants in Bhojpur, Vaisahali and Muzaffarpur.
Indian states like Bihar, Andhra Pradesh and others where new chrysotile asbestos based plants are proposed will now have to abandon their plans.
For Details: Gopal Krishna, Ban Asbestos Network of India (BANI), Mb: 9818089660,
E-mail: krishna2777@gmail.com, Blog: banasbestosindia.blogspot.com,
Web: www.toxicswatch.com
Punjab to produce power from solid waste
Punjab Deputy Chief Minister Sukhbir Singh Badal today said the state government has chalked out a programme for scientific disposal of solid waste, for which the state has been divided into eight zones. Talking to mediapersons after a Sangat Darshan in Jalalabad, the deputy chief minister said private companies would set up solid waste processing plants under which power, manure and plastic would be manufactured. He said the companies would themselves organise door-to-door collection of solid waste, which would then be transported to centralised processing plants. The project would also make cities free of open dumping grounds.
Sukhbir said the uninterrupted power supply had ensured paddy transplantation was going on across the state without any glitch. The state government was also offering huge subsidies to farmers for mechanised transplanters, he added. Sukhbir said Captain Amarinder Singh, was ignorant of development projects because of his “prolonged absence” from the state.
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/punjab-to-produce-power-from-solid-waste-sukhbir/805890/
Sukhbir said the uninterrupted power supply had ensured paddy transplantation was going on across the state without any glitch. The state government was also offering huge subsidies to farmers for mechanised transplanters, he added. Sukhbir said Captain Amarinder Singh, was ignorant of development projects because of his “prolonged absence” from the state.
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/punjab-to-produce-power-from-solid-waste-sukhbir/805890/
NHRC Approached for listing of Chrysotile Asbestos in UN Hazardous Chemicals List
Written By mediavigil on Monday, June 20, 2011 | 6:52 AM
To
Chairman,
National Human Rights Commission (NHRC)
New Delhi
Date: 15/6/2011
Subject- Reference Complaint No. 41418/15 April, 2010, seeking recommendation listing of chrysotile asbestos in the Prior Informed Consent (PIC) procedure list of hazardous materials at the 5th meeting of the Conference of Parties (COP5) to the UN's Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade (20 to 24 June, 2011, Geneva)
Sir,
I wish to congratulate you for ensuring that NHRC (India) retained its “A” status in its accreditation with the International Coordinating Committee of the National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs), Geneva which it has been holding since 1999 under UN’s “Paris Principles”.
This status has been achieved and maintained because of the pro-active role of NHRC for the protection of human rights causes not only within the country but even in International Conventions as an independent body.
I would, in particular, like to mention the bold and independent stand taken by NHRC in the matter of ban on Endosulfan wherein it urged the Government of India to join the international consensus against it in the UN's Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs). This position of NHRC has been deemed quite progressive world over. Endosulfan was banned in most of the countries but Government of India had not taken a pro-public health position on it.
I submit that NHRC’s recommendation in the matter of Preventive Remedial Rehabilitative and Compensation for victims of lung disease-Silicosis. Such steps of NHRC and sensitivity towards environment and pollution related crimes are commendable.
Similar to silicosis, asbestos related diseases are also incurable. Asbestos death toll has surpassed traffic fatalities in Australia. In US, every year 10, 000 people are dying because of asbestos related disease. There is an epidemic of asbestos diseases in Europe. In India, a silent Bhopal disaster is happening every year. The rate of consumption of asbestos in India is rising at an alarming rate due to budgetary support. Nearly all of Indi 's asbestos is mixed with cement to form roofing sheets. Bolstered by asbestos import tariffs that have been reduced from 78% in the mid-1990s to 15% by 2004, the country's asbestos-cement industry is increasing by roughly 10% every year. Since 2003, companies no longer require a special licence to import chrysotile asbestos.
Since 1960, India has incorporated about 7 million tonnes of asbestos into its buildings. The health consequences are already apparent, but the scale of the problem is not clear because there is no documentation of disease caused by environmental and occupational factors. “The Government of India has a very poor, almost non-existent, system to record death and disease”, explains Arthur Frank from Drexel University , Philadelphia , PA , USA who was in New Delhi in March 2011. Besides, cancer is not a notifiable disease. Prof. Frank cited a hospital in Mumbai which sees a dozen cases of mesothelioma every year. Studies have shown high rates of asbestosis among workers in the industry, including in those whose exposure to the material has spanned less than 5 years. There has been no real assessment of [asbestos-related disease] to the point that you can get accurate figures.
Like Endosulfan, several attempts have been made to include chrysotile asbestos (White Asbestos) on the UN’s prior informed consent list of hazardous chemicals due to non-cooperative role of the Government of India and exporting countries like Canada, the UN Convention has failed to do so.
Chrysotile asbestos is banned in 55 countries, including the European Union and Japan etc. The verdict even by the World Trade Organization (WTO)’s Appellate Body (AB) which validated the rights of Member States to prohibit the import and use of goods which contain carcinogenic substances such as chrysotile asbestos (white asbestos) is noteworthy. On March 12, 2001 the WTO's Appellate Body (AB) issued its ruling in the case of Canada vs. the European Communities Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos-Containing Products. It noted that safe and controlled use of chrysotile asbestos is impossible.
India is the largest importer of asbestos, according to the United Nations Commodity Trade Statistics Database. Most of it goes into making corrugated roofing sheets as building material.
In such a backdrop, it is submitted that in an order dated January 21, 201, Hon’ble Supreme Court’s bench of Chief Justice of India Justice S.H. Kapadia, Justice K.S. Panicker Radhakrishnan and Justice Swatanter Kumar has observed in para 15, “the Government has already presented the Bill in Rajya Sabha. The statement of objects and reasons of this Bill specifically notices that the white asbestos is highly carcinogenic and it has been so reported by the World Health Organisation. In India, it is imported without any restriction while even its domestic use is not preferred by the exporting countries.”
The Bench of Chief Justice of India notes, “Canada and Russia are the biggest exporters of white asbestos. In 2007, Canada exported 95% of the white asbestos, it mined out of which 43% was shipped to India. In view of these facts, there is an urgent need for a total ban on the import and use of white asbestos and promote the use of alternative materials. The Bill is yet to be passed but it is clearly demonstrated that the Government is required to take effective steps to prevent hazardous impact of use of asbestos.”
It is also noteworthy that the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) too has passed an order in Case No: 693/30/97-98 recommending that the asbestos sheets roofing be replaced with roofing made up of some other material that would not be harmful.
I submit that the Annual Report of NHRC 2003-2004 refers to a Report entitled “Asbestos – Health and Environment – an in-depth Study “submitted by the Institute of Public Health Engineers, India. The study underlines that safe and controlled use of asbestos is not possible.
It is relevant to point out that asbestos waste (dust and fibers) has been treated hazardous in all forms and has been banned under Hazardous Wastes Management Rules farmed under the Environment Protection Act, 1986. In our country, approximately 50, 000 people die every year due to asbestos related cancer. But so far Government of India has failed to take a pro-people’s health position and a scientific stand on the import of chrysotile asbestos whose mining is technically banned in India.
I submit that there is a nexus of political class and business class which is not allowing Government of India to take steps to protect human health from the lethal fibers of chrysotile asbestos. It is relevant to note that Kerala State Human Rights Commission has recommended ban on use of asbestos roofs for schools and hospitals.
In this regard, I may point out that NHRC’s urgent attention is required towards the 5th Conference of the Parties (COP5) to the UN's Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade to be held in Geneva during June 20-24, 2011 wherein the fate of Endosulfan, Chrysotile asbestos and some other chemicals will be decided for inclusion in the UN list of hazardous chemicals.
Having succeeded in, blocking UN recommendations on, four previous occasions, there is little doubt that, chrysotile asbestos producers will repeat their obstructive, behaviour at the COP-5, Rotterdam Convention held in Geneva. It is high time Government of India is asked to detach itself from the unethical practice of chrysotile asbestos producing countries.
The objective of the Rotterdam Convention “is to promote shared responsibility and cooperative efforts among Parties in the international trade of certain hazardous chemicals in order to protect human health and the environment from potential harm.”
In order to meet its objective, COP5 of Rotterdam Convention will consider the inclusion in Annex III of chrysotile asbestos, Endosulfan and other chemicals under agenda item 5 c.
It is noteworthy that the inclusion in Annex III does not equate to a prohibition of trade. It imposes requirements on exporting nations to provide basic information to consumers and customers environmental health hazards due to certain hazardous chemicals and pesticides in international trade.
It appears that Government of India has been misled about the toxicity of to chrysotile asbestos. As a consequence, the global public opinion and Indian citizens have begun to consider Indian chrysotile asbestos companies as the main obstacle to the inclusion of chrysotile asbestos in the list of UN agreement on hazardous chemicals.
I submit that a just transition program for asbestos workers, their families and communities around asbestos plants and products is urgently required, the NHRC may recommend to Government of India to adopt such a program.
In such a context, I appeal to NHRC to ask Government of India:
• To comply with the resolutions of WHO and ILO (2005 and 2006 seeking elimination of future use of asbestos including chrysotile asbestos worldwide
• To announce the compensation package for present and future victims of asbestos diseases as it has done in the case of Silicosis and make the asbestos companies criminally liable for knowingly exposing citizens and consumers of asbestos products
• To take note of Union Minister of Health and Family Welfare Ministry's statement in Rajya Sabha saying: "Studies by the National Institute of Occupational Health, Ahmedabad, have shown that long-term exposure to any type of asbestos can lead to the development of asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma'' on August 18, 2003
• To take cognisance of the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court’s bench of Chief Justice of India dated January 21, 2011
• To take note of The White Asbestos (Ban on Use and Import) Bill, 2009 introduced in Rajya Sabha and the order of the Kerala State Human Rights Commission dated 31st January 2009 banning the use of asbestos in schools and hospitals
• To consider the deliberations of the International Conference on "Emerging Trends in Preventing Occupational Respiratory Diseases and Cancers in Workplace" at Maulana Azad Medical College, New Delhi in March 2011 following which New Delhi Declaration Seeking Elimination of all forms of Asbestos including Chrysotile from India on 24 March, 2011
• To take note of the fact that every international health agency of repute including the World Health Organization, the International Labor Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and the American Cancer Society agree there is no safe level of asbestos exposure. Most recently, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) reconfirmed that all commercial asbestos fibers - including chrysotile, the most commercially used form of asbestos - cause lung cancer and mesothelioma. In addition, IARC newly confirmed that there is sufficient evidence that asbestos causes ovarian cancer and reconfirmed asbestos causes laryngeal cancer
• To recall that the World Health Organisation's latest estimate notes that asbestos already claims 107,000 lives a year. Even that conservative estimate means every five minutes around the clock a person dies of asbestos related disease. The ongoing use of the asbestos fibre kills at least 300 people every day
• To respect the scientific process of the Rotterdam Convention and approve the recommendations of the Chemical Review Committee to list chrysotile asbestos in the PIC list of hazardous substances
• To refer to World Bank's Asbestos Good Practice Guidelines. These Guidelines, as well as its earlier Environmental, Health & Safety General Guidelines, require that the use of asbestos must be avoided in new construction in projects funded by the World Bank around the world. The Guidelines also provide information on available safer alternatives to asbestos.
In such a backdrop, it is germane to ask as to why India still a leading importer of chrysotile asbestos.
It is submitted that Canadian government which exports chrysotile asbestos to India has removed it from Canadian Parliament and its Prime Minister's Home. India has technically banned mining of asbestos (including chrysotile) but allows import, manufacture and use of asbestos based products which are proven to be deadly!
The UN's Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade is an important tool to protect human health and the environment by controlling trade in hazardous chemicals and pesticides that meet the requirements of the Convention.
It is indeed unbecoming of a small number of Parties to the UN agreement (like Government of India), who have been misguided by commercial interest of chrysotile asbestos companies to the Convention hostage by refusing to cooperate with the scientific process of the Convention and the will of the overwhelming majority or Parties.
It does not behove the stature of Government of India to wield a veto over the Convention against the listing of chrysotile asbestos as a hazardous substance and deny itself the sovereign right to utilize the prior informed consent procedure. When a hazardous substance is listed under Annex III of the Convention, Parties like Government of India has the sovereign right to utilize the procedure.
It is an act of immorality of Government of Canada to have prevailed upon Government of India to obstruct the recommendation of the Chemical Review Committee regarding chrysotile asbestos to protect the blind lust for commercial profit at the cost of the health of Indian citizens and workers. It is quite sad that Government of Canada has misinformed and misguided Government of India to deny itself the right to control its own borders from hazardous substances under the manifest influence of chrysotile asbestos companies.
The Rotterdam Convention is based on the principle of environmental justice. It has been witnessed that increasingly, hazardous chemicals and pesticides that are banned or severely restricted in industrialized countries are being shipped to developing countries or countries with economies in transition, where resources to safely monitor and manage these dangerous substances are often lacking or non-existent.
The Rotterdam Convention addresses this inequality in exposure to environmental and human risk by empowering countries with the right to Prior Informed Consent. All Parties to the Convention have a legal and moral obligation to support the right to Prior Informed Consent in the Convention as an important tool for overcoming the widening gap.
You will agree that human biology is same everywhere if the asbestos is deemed hazardous in the developed countries; it must be deemed so in India too.
In view of the above, it is your solemn duty of NHRC to protect Indian citizens from the exposure of fibers of chrysotile asbestos. In pursuance of the same as a first step there is a compelling reason for Government of India to support listing of chrysotile asbestos in the Prior Informed Consent (PIC) procedure list of hazardous materials at the 5th meeting of the Conference of Parties (COP5) to the UN's Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade (20 to 24 June, 2011, Geneva).
All the groups working on human rights, labour rights, health rights and environmental justice will appreciate if NHRC intervenes urgently in the matter of Chrysotile Asbestos as it did in the case of Endosufan.
We will happy to meet and share additional information.
Yours Sincerely
(Gopal Krishna)
ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA)
A 124/6 Ist Floor, Katwaria Sarai
New Delhi Mb: 9818089660
E-mail: krishna2777@gmail.com, toxicswatchalliance@gmail.com
Web: www.toxicswatch.com
Chairman,
National Human Rights Commission (NHRC)
New Delhi
Date: 15/6/2011
Subject- Reference Complaint No. 41418/15 April, 2010, seeking recommendation listing of chrysotile asbestos in the Prior Informed Consent (PIC) procedure list of hazardous materials at the 5th meeting of the Conference of Parties (COP5) to the UN's Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade (20 to 24 June, 2011, Geneva)
Sir,
I wish to congratulate you for ensuring that NHRC (India) retained its “A” status in its accreditation with the International Coordinating Committee of the National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs), Geneva which it has been holding since 1999 under UN’s “Paris Principles”.
This status has been achieved and maintained because of the pro-active role of NHRC for the protection of human rights causes not only within the country but even in International Conventions as an independent body.
I would, in particular, like to mention the bold and independent stand taken by NHRC in the matter of ban on Endosulfan wherein it urged the Government of India to join the international consensus against it in the UN's Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs). This position of NHRC has been deemed quite progressive world over. Endosulfan was banned in most of the countries but Government of India had not taken a pro-public health position on it.
I submit that NHRC’s recommendation in the matter of Preventive Remedial Rehabilitative and Compensation for victims of lung disease-Silicosis. Such steps of NHRC and sensitivity towards environment and pollution related crimes are commendable.
Similar to silicosis, asbestos related diseases are also incurable. Asbestos death toll has surpassed traffic fatalities in Australia. In US, every year 10, 000 people are dying because of asbestos related disease. There is an epidemic of asbestos diseases in Europe. In India, a silent Bhopal disaster is happening every year. The rate of consumption of asbestos in India is rising at an alarming rate due to budgetary support. Nearly all of Indi 's asbestos is mixed with cement to form roofing sheets. Bolstered by asbestos import tariffs that have been reduced from 78% in the mid-1990s to 15% by 2004, the country's asbestos-cement industry is increasing by roughly 10% every year. Since 2003, companies no longer require a special licence to import chrysotile asbestos.
Since 1960, India has incorporated about 7 million tonnes of asbestos into its buildings. The health consequences are already apparent, but the scale of the problem is not clear because there is no documentation of disease caused by environmental and occupational factors. “The Government of India has a very poor, almost non-existent, system to record death and disease”, explains Arthur Frank from Drexel University , Philadelphia , PA , USA who was in New Delhi in March 2011. Besides, cancer is not a notifiable disease. Prof. Frank cited a hospital in Mumbai which sees a dozen cases of mesothelioma every year. Studies have shown high rates of asbestosis among workers in the industry, including in those whose exposure to the material has spanned less than 5 years. There has been no real assessment of [asbestos-related disease] to the point that you can get accurate figures.
Like Endosulfan, several attempts have been made to include chrysotile asbestos (White Asbestos) on the UN’s prior informed consent list of hazardous chemicals due to non-cooperative role of the Government of India and exporting countries like Canada, the UN Convention has failed to do so.
Chrysotile asbestos is banned in 55 countries, including the European Union and Japan etc. The verdict even by the World Trade Organization (WTO)’s Appellate Body (AB) which validated the rights of Member States to prohibit the import and use of goods which contain carcinogenic substances such as chrysotile asbestos (white asbestos) is noteworthy. On March 12, 2001 the WTO's Appellate Body (AB) issued its ruling in the case of Canada vs. the European Communities Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos-Containing Products. It noted that safe and controlled use of chrysotile asbestos is impossible.
India is the largest importer of asbestos, according to the United Nations Commodity Trade Statistics Database. Most of it goes into making corrugated roofing sheets as building material.
In such a backdrop, it is submitted that in an order dated January 21, 201, Hon’ble Supreme Court’s bench of Chief Justice of India Justice S.H. Kapadia, Justice K.S. Panicker Radhakrishnan and Justice Swatanter Kumar has observed in para 15, “the Government has already presented the Bill in Rajya Sabha. The statement of objects and reasons of this Bill specifically notices that the white asbestos is highly carcinogenic and it has been so reported by the World Health Organisation. In India, it is imported without any restriction while even its domestic use is not preferred by the exporting countries.”
The Bench of Chief Justice of India notes, “Canada and Russia are the biggest exporters of white asbestos. In 2007, Canada exported 95% of the white asbestos, it mined out of which 43% was shipped to India. In view of these facts, there is an urgent need for a total ban on the import and use of white asbestos and promote the use of alternative materials. The Bill is yet to be passed but it is clearly demonstrated that the Government is required to take effective steps to prevent hazardous impact of use of asbestos.”
It is also noteworthy that the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) too has passed an order in Case No: 693/30/97-98 recommending that the asbestos sheets roofing be replaced with roofing made up of some other material that would not be harmful.
I submit that the Annual Report of NHRC 2003-2004 refers to a Report entitled “Asbestos – Health and Environment – an in-depth Study “submitted by the Institute of Public Health Engineers, India. The study underlines that safe and controlled use of asbestos is not possible.
It is relevant to point out that asbestos waste (dust and fibers) has been treated hazardous in all forms and has been banned under Hazardous Wastes Management Rules farmed under the Environment Protection Act, 1986. In our country, approximately 50, 000 people die every year due to asbestos related cancer. But so far Government of India has failed to take a pro-people’s health position and a scientific stand on the import of chrysotile asbestos whose mining is technically banned in India.
I submit that there is a nexus of political class and business class which is not allowing Government of India to take steps to protect human health from the lethal fibers of chrysotile asbestos. It is relevant to note that Kerala State Human Rights Commission has recommended ban on use of asbestos roofs for schools and hospitals.
In this regard, I may point out that NHRC’s urgent attention is required towards the 5th Conference of the Parties (COP5) to the UN's Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade to be held in Geneva during June 20-24, 2011 wherein the fate of Endosulfan, Chrysotile asbestos and some other chemicals will be decided for inclusion in the UN list of hazardous chemicals.
Having succeeded in, blocking UN recommendations on, four previous occasions, there is little doubt that, chrysotile asbestos producers will repeat their obstructive, behaviour at the COP-5, Rotterdam Convention held in Geneva. It is high time Government of India is asked to detach itself from the unethical practice of chrysotile asbestos producing countries.
The objective of the Rotterdam Convention “is to promote shared responsibility and cooperative efforts among Parties in the international trade of certain hazardous chemicals in order to protect human health and the environment from potential harm.”
In order to meet its objective, COP5 of Rotterdam Convention will consider the inclusion in Annex III of chrysotile asbestos, Endosulfan and other chemicals under agenda item 5 c.
It is noteworthy that the inclusion in Annex III does not equate to a prohibition of trade. It imposes requirements on exporting nations to provide basic information to consumers and customers environmental health hazards due to certain hazardous chemicals and pesticides in international trade.
It appears that Government of India has been misled about the toxicity of to chrysotile asbestos. As a consequence, the global public opinion and Indian citizens have begun to consider Indian chrysotile asbestos companies as the main obstacle to the inclusion of chrysotile asbestos in the list of UN agreement on hazardous chemicals.
I submit that a just transition program for asbestos workers, their families and communities around asbestos plants and products is urgently required, the NHRC may recommend to Government of India to adopt such a program.
In such a context, I appeal to NHRC to ask Government of India:
• To comply with the resolutions of WHO and ILO (2005 and 2006 seeking elimination of future use of asbestos including chrysotile asbestos worldwide
• To announce the compensation package for present and future victims of asbestos diseases as it has done in the case of Silicosis and make the asbestos companies criminally liable for knowingly exposing citizens and consumers of asbestos products
• To take note of Union Minister of Health and Family Welfare Ministry's statement in Rajya Sabha saying: "Studies by the National Institute of Occupational Health, Ahmedabad, have shown that long-term exposure to any type of asbestos can lead to the development of asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma'' on August 18, 2003
• To take cognisance of the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court’s bench of Chief Justice of India dated January 21, 2011
• To take note of The White Asbestos (Ban on Use and Import) Bill, 2009 introduced in Rajya Sabha and the order of the Kerala State Human Rights Commission dated 31st January 2009 banning the use of asbestos in schools and hospitals
• To consider the deliberations of the International Conference on "Emerging Trends in Preventing Occupational Respiratory Diseases and Cancers in Workplace" at Maulana Azad Medical College, New Delhi in March 2011 following which New Delhi Declaration Seeking Elimination of all forms of Asbestos including Chrysotile from India on 24 March, 2011
• To take note of the fact that every international health agency of repute including the World Health Organization, the International Labor Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and the American Cancer Society agree there is no safe level of asbestos exposure. Most recently, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) reconfirmed that all commercial asbestos fibers - including chrysotile, the most commercially used form of asbestos - cause lung cancer and mesothelioma. In addition, IARC newly confirmed that there is sufficient evidence that asbestos causes ovarian cancer and reconfirmed asbestos causes laryngeal cancer
• To recall that the World Health Organisation's latest estimate notes that asbestos already claims 107,000 lives a year. Even that conservative estimate means every five minutes around the clock a person dies of asbestos related disease. The ongoing use of the asbestos fibre kills at least 300 people every day
• To respect the scientific process of the Rotterdam Convention and approve the recommendations of the Chemical Review Committee to list chrysotile asbestos in the PIC list of hazardous substances
• To refer to World Bank's Asbestos Good Practice Guidelines. These Guidelines, as well as its earlier Environmental, Health & Safety General Guidelines, require that the use of asbestos must be avoided in new construction in projects funded by the World Bank around the world. The Guidelines also provide information on available safer alternatives to asbestos.
In such a backdrop, it is germane to ask as to why India still a leading importer of chrysotile asbestos.
It is submitted that Canadian government which exports chrysotile asbestos to India has removed it from Canadian Parliament and its Prime Minister's Home. India has technically banned mining of asbestos (including chrysotile) but allows import, manufacture and use of asbestos based products which are proven to be deadly!
The UN's Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade is an important tool to protect human health and the environment by controlling trade in hazardous chemicals and pesticides that meet the requirements of the Convention.
It is indeed unbecoming of a small number of Parties to the UN agreement (like Government of India), who have been misguided by commercial interest of chrysotile asbestos companies to the Convention hostage by refusing to cooperate with the scientific process of the Convention and the will of the overwhelming majority or Parties.
It does not behove the stature of Government of India to wield a veto over the Convention against the listing of chrysotile asbestos as a hazardous substance and deny itself the sovereign right to utilize the prior informed consent procedure. When a hazardous substance is listed under Annex III of the Convention, Parties like Government of India has the sovereign right to utilize the procedure.
It is an act of immorality of Government of Canada to have prevailed upon Government of India to obstruct the recommendation of the Chemical Review Committee regarding chrysotile asbestos to protect the blind lust for commercial profit at the cost of the health of Indian citizens and workers. It is quite sad that Government of Canada has misinformed and misguided Government of India to deny itself the right to control its own borders from hazardous substances under the manifest influence of chrysotile asbestos companies.
The Rotterdam Convention is based on the principle of environmental justice. It has been witnessed that increasingly, hazardous chemicals and pesticides that are banned or severely restricted in industrialized countries are being shipped to developing countries or countries with economies in transition, where resources to safely monitor and manage these dangerous substances are often lacking or non-existent.
The Rotterdam Convention addresses this inequality in exposure to environmental and human risk by empowering countries with the right to Prior Informed Consent. All Parties to the Convention have a legal and moral obligation to support the right to Prior Informed Consent in the Convention as an important tool for overcoming the widening gap.
You will agree that human biology is same everywhere if the asbestos is deemed hazardous in the developed countries; it must be deemed so in India too.
In view of the above, it is your solemn duty of NHRC to protect Indian citizens from the exposure of fibers of chrysotile asbestos. In pursuance of the same as a first step there is a compelling reason for Government of India to support listing of chrysotile asbestos in the Prior Informed Consent (PIC) procedure list of hazardous materials at the 5th meeting of the Conference of Parties (COP5) to the UN's Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade (20 to 24 June, 2011, Geneva).
All the groups working on human rights, labour rights, health rights and environmental justice will appreciate if NHRC intervenes urgently in the matter of Chrysotile Asbestos as it did in the case of Endosufan.
We will happy to meet and share additional information.
Yours Sincerely
(Gopal Krishna)
ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA)
A 124/6 Ist Floor, Katwaria Sarai
New Delhi Mb: 9818089660
E-mail: krishna2777@gmail.com, toxicswatchalliance@gmail.com
Web: www.toxicswatch.com
Expert Committee to Look Into Okhla Incinerator Violations – Delhi CM
Written By krishna on Friday, June 17, 2011 | 6:21 AM
ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA)
All India Kabadi Mazdoor Mahasangh
Okhla Anti-Incinerator Committee
PRESS NOTE
Expert Committee to Look Into Okhla Incinerator Violations – CM
Jindal’s Reply on Incinerator Technology Awaited-CPCB
NEW DELHI, June 17 – Delhi Chief Minister Sheila Dikshit said Friday that she has constituted an expert committee to look into legal and other violations by the waste-to-energy incinerator plant in the Okhla residential area as was pointed out by Minister for Environment and Forests, Jairam Ramesh. She was talking to a delegation of waste pickers and an environmental group who reiterated the violations of all the relevant laws.
Dikshit conveyed this at the meeting where Toxic Watch Alliance (TWA) convener, Gopal Krishna briefed her about the economic pitfalls of waste incineration besides environmental concerns that emerge from it. He also pointed out the violation of the Supreme Court order by the proposed waste to energy incinerators in Delhi.
Shashi Bhushan Pandit of the All India Kabadi Mazdoor Mahasangh which represents some 5000,000 ragpickers in Delhi submitted that waste to energy incinerators will destroy the livelihood of workers. Dikhshit assured him that Environment Secretary and Labour Minister will look into matter address the concerns.
This assurance of Dikshit after Jairam Ramesh’s visit to the plant and his order seeking a separate review by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) assumes significance. Ramesh warned the project proponent, Jindal Ecopolis (Timarpur-Okhla Municipal Solid Waste Management Company Pvt. Ltd (TOWMCL), 100 % subsidiary of O P Jindal Group’s Jindal ITF Urban Infrastructure Ltd.) that the plant will not get operational clearance until the board was fully satisfied on safety and regulatory issues.
After the first meeting convened by the CPCB on April 26, 2011 technical experts from the CPCB led by its chairman, CPCB, Prof. S.P. Gautam, it has emerged that although more than a month has passed but the CEO of Jindal Ecopolis (JE), Allard Nooyi has failed to provide technical details of the plant to the CPCB despite repeated reminders.
In a letter dated June 10, 2011 to the Okhla residents, Prof. Gautam said: “a submission of technical details by JE is still awaited. Therefore the second meeting could not take place in want of details from JE to deliberate the technology.”
Gautam added in the letter: “The CPCB has already sent reminders for submission of technology to the project proponents.”
In his written response to Prof. Gautam on June 13, 2011 Mr. Anant Trivedi, a resident of Eshwar Nagar, Okhla area called on him “order a stop to further construction until you are fully satisfied with the safety of the technology and are happy that the handling of the waste will not hazardous to health.”
“It kis not possible that they have designed a plant and almost finished constructing it without being in possession of technical details of what it is supposed to do,” Trivedi said.
Disposal of hazardous fly ash, and the spread of contaminants like dioxin and furans as well as mercury and other heavy metals were apprehensions voiced at the CPCB meeting.
Okhla communities falling within a two kilometer radius of the plant and protesting include those from New Friends Colony, Sukhdev Vihar, Jasola Vihar, Sarita Vihar, Kalkaji and Jamia Nagar.
(END)
For Details: Gopal Krishna, ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA), Mb: 9818089660, E-mail: krishna2777@gmail.com
Arif Khan, General Secretary, Haji Colony RWA . Mobile: 9891519844
Anant Trivedi, RWA member, Ishwar Nagar. 011- 41672238, mobile: 9868502292
Vanya Joshi, Coordinator, Okhla Anti-Incineration Committee - 9873980694
Asha Arora, Co-coordinator, Okhla Anti-incineration Committee. Mobile-9711408421 .
Padma Agarwal Gen. Secy RWA Jasola Vihar - 9312212419
Praveen Shrivastava, RWA, Sarita Vihar - 9871039616
S. Khurana, Vice President Sukhdev Vihar RWA - 9810218150
Web: toxicswatch.blogspot.com
Facebook site Okhla ka Ghosla
All India Kabadi Mazdoor Mahasangh
Okhla Anti-Incinerator Committee
PRESS NOTE
Expert Committee to Look Into Okhla Incinerator Violations – CM
Jindal’s Reply on Incinerator Technology Awaited-CPCB
NEW DELHI, June 17 – Delhi Chief Minister Sheila Dikshit said Friday that she has constituted an expert committee to look into legal and other violations by the waste-to-energy incinerator plant in the Okhla residential area as was pointed out by Minister for Environment and Forests, Jairam Ramesh. She was talking to a delegation of waste pickers and an environmental group who reiterated the violations of all the relevant laws.
Dikshit conveyed this at the meeting where Toxic Watch Alliance (TWA) convener, Gopal Krishna briefed her about the economic pitfalls of waste incineration besides environmental concerns that emerge from it. He also pointed out the violation of the Supreme Court order by the proposed waste to energy incinerators in Delhi.
Shashi Bhushan Pandit of the All India Kabadi Mazdoor Mahasangh which represents some 5000,000 ragpickers in Delhi submitted that waste to energy incinerators will destroy the livelihood of workers. Dikhshit assured him that Environment Secretary and Labour Minister will look into matter address the concerns.
This assurance of Dikshit after Jairam Ramesh’s visit to the plant and his order seeking a separate review by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) assumes significance. Ramesh warned the project proponent, Jindal Ecopolis (Timarpur-Okhla Municipal Solid Waste Management Company Pvt. Ltd (TOWMCL), 100 % subsidiary of O P Jindal Group’s Jindal ITF Urban Infrastructure Ltd.) that the plant will not get operational clearance until the board was fully satisfied on safety and regulatory issues.
After the first meeting convened by the CPCB on April 26, 2011 technical experts from the CPCB led by its chairman, CPCB, Prof. S.P. Gautam, it has emerged that although more than a month has passed but the CEO of Jindal Ecopolis (JE), Allard Nooyi has failed to provide technical details of the plant to the CPCB despite repeated reminders.
In a letter dated June 10, 2011 to the Okhla residents, Prof. Gautam said: “a submission of technical details by JE is still awaited. Therefore the second meeting could not take place in want of details from JE to deliberate the technology.”
Gautam added in the letter: “The CPCB has already sent reminders for submission of technology to the project proponents.”
In his written response to Prof. Gautam on June 13, 2011 Mr. Anant Trivedi, a resident of Eshwar Nagar, Okhla area called on him “order a stop to further construction until you are fully satisfied with the safety of the technology and are happy that the handling of the waste will not hazardous to health.”
“It kis not possible that they have designed a plant and almost finished constructing it without being in possession of technical details of what it is supposed to do,” Trivedi said.
Disposal of hazardous fly ash, and the spread of contaminants like dioxin and furans as well as mercury and other heavy metals were apprehensions voiced at the CPCB meeting.
Okhla communities falling within a two kilometer radius of the plant and protesting include those from New Friends Colony, Sukhdev Vihar, Jasola Vihar, Sarita Vihar, Kalkaji and Jamia Nagar.
(END)
For Details: Gopal Krishna, ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA), Mb: 9818089660, E-mail: krishna2777@gmail.com
Arif Khan, General Secretary, Haji Colony RWA . Mobile: 9891519844
Anant Trivedi, RWA member, Ishwar Nagar. 011- 41672238, mobile: 9868502292
Vanya Joshi, Coordinator, Okhla Anti-Incineration Committee - 9873980694
Asha Arora, Co-coordinator, Okhla Anti-incineration Committee. Mobile-9711408421 .
Padma Agarwal Gen. Secy RWA Jasola Vihar - 9312212419
Praveen Shrivastava, RWA, Sarita Vihar - 9871039616
S. Khurana, Vice President Sukhdev Vihar RWA - 9810218150
Web: toxicswatch.blogspot.com
Facebook site Okhla ka Ghosla
Expert Committee to Look Into Okhla Incinerator Violations – Delhi CM
ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA)
All India Kabadi Mazdoor Mahasangh
Okhla Anti-Incinerator Committee
PRESS NOTE
Expert Committee to Look Into Okhla Incinerator Violations – CM
Jindal’s Reply on Incinerator Technology Awaited-CPCB
NEW DELHI, June 17 – Delhi Chief Minister Sheila Dikshit said Friday that she has constituted an expert committee to look into legal and other violations by the waste-to-energy incinerator plant in the Okhla residential area as was pointed out by Minister for Environment and Forests, Jairam Ramesh. She was talking to a delegation of waste pickers and an environmental group who reiterated the violations of all the relevant laws.
Dikshit conveyed this at the meeting where Toxic Watch Alliance (TWA) convener, Gopal Krishna briefed her about the economic pitfalls of waste incineration besides environmental concerns that emerge from it. He also pointed out the violation of the Supreme Court order by the proposed waste to energy incinerators in Delhi.
Shashi Bhushan Pandit of the All India Kabadi Mazdoor Mahasangh which represents some 5000,000 ragpickers in Delhi submitted that waste to energy incinerators will destroy the livelihood of workers. Dikhshit assured him that Environment Secretary and Labour Minister will look into matter address the concerns.
This assurance of Dikshit after Jairam Ramesh’s visit to the plant and his order seeking a separate review by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) assumes significance. Ramesh warned the project proponent, Jindal Ecopolis (Timarpur-Okhla Municipal Solid Waste Management Company Pvt. Ltd (TOWMCL), 100 % subsidiary of O P Jindal Group’s Jindal ITF Urban Infrastructure Ltd.) that the plant will not get operational clearance until the board was fully satisfied on safety and regulatory issues.
After the first meeting convened by the CPCB on April 26, 2011 technical experts from the CPCB led by its chairman, CPCB, Prof. S.P. Gautam, it has emerged that although more than a month has passed but the CEO of Jindal Ecopolis (JE), Allard Nooyi has failed to provide technical details of the plant to the CPCB despite repeated reminders.
In a letter dated June 10, 2011 to the Okhla residents, Prof. Gautam said: “a submission of technical details by JE is still awaited. Therefore the second meeting could not take place in want of details from JE to deliberate the technology.”
Gautam added in the letter: “The CPCB has already sent reminders for submission of technology to the project proponents.”
In his written response to Prof. Gautam on June 13, 2011 Mr. Anant Trivedi, a resident of Eshwar Nagar, Okhla area called on him “order a stop to further construction until you are fully satisfied with the safety of the technology and are happy that the handling of the waste will not hazardous to health.”
“It kis not possible that they have designed a plant and almost finished constructing it without being in possession of technical details of what it is supposed to do,” Trivedi said.
Disposal of hazardous fly ash, and the spread of contaminants like dioxin and furans as well as mercury and other heavy metals were apprehensions voiced at the CPCB meeting.
Okhla communities falling within a two kilometer radius of the plant and protesting include those from New Friends Colony, Sukhdev Vihar, Jasola Vihar, Sarita Vihar, Kalkaji and Jamia Nagar.
(END)
For Details: Gopal Krishna, ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA), Mb: 9818089660, E-mail: krishna2777@gmail.com
Arif Khan, General Secretary, Haji Colony RWA . Mobile: 9891519844
Anant Trivedi, RWA member, Ishwar Nagar. 011- 41672238, mobile: 9868502292
Vanya Joshi, Coordinator, Okhla Anti-Incineration Committee - 9873980694
Asha Arora, Co-coordinator, Okhla Anti-incineration Committee. Mobile-9711408421 .
Padma Agarwal Gen. Secy RWA Jasola Vihar - 9312212419
Praveen Shrivastava, RWA, Sarita Vihar - 9871039616
S. Khurana, Vice President Sukhdev Vihar RWA - 9810218150
Web: toxicswatch.blogspot.com
Facebook site Okhla ka Ghosla
All India Kabadi Mazdoor Mahasangh
Okhla Anti-Incinerator Committee
PRESS NOTE
Expert Committee to Look Into Okhla Incinerator Violations – CM
Jindal’s Reply on Incinerator Technology Awaited-CPCB
NEW DELHI, June 17 – Delhi Chief Minister Sheila Dikshit said Friday that she has constituted an expert committee to look into legal and other violations by the waste-to-energy incinerator plant in the Okhla residential area as was pointed out by Minister for Environment and Forests, Jairam Ramesh. She was talking to a delegation of waste pickers and an environmental group who reiterated the violations of all the relevant laws.
Dikshit conveyed this at the meeting where Toxic Watch Alliance (TWA) convener, Gopal Krishna briefed her about the economic pitfalls of waste incineration besides environmental concerns that emerge from it. He also pointed out the violation of the Supreme Court order by the proposed waste to energy incinerators in Delhi.
Shashi Bhushan Pandit of the All India Kabadi Mazdoor Mahasangh which represents some 5000,000 ragpickers in Delhi submitted that waste to energy incinerators will destroy the livelihood of workers. Dikhshit assured him that Environment Secretary and Labour Minister will look into matter address the concerns.
This assurance of Dikshit after Jairam Ramesh’s visit to the plant and his order seeking a separate review by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) assumes significance. Ramesh warned the project proponent, Jindal Ecopolis (Timarpur-Okhla Municipal Solid Waste Management Company Pvt. Ltd (TOWMCL), 100 % subsidiary of O P Jindal Group’s Jindal ITF Urban Infrastructure Ltd.) that the plant will not get operational clearance until the board was fully satisfied on safety and regulatory issues.
After the first meeting convened by the CPCB on April 26, 2011 technical experts from the CPCB led by its chairman, CPCB, Prof. S.P. Gautam, it has emerged that although more than a month has passed but the CEO of Jindal Ecopolis (JE), Allard Nooyi has failed to provide technical details of the plant to the CPCB despite repeated reminders.
In a letter dated June 10, 2011 to the Okhla residents, Prof. Gautam said: “a submission of technical details by JE is still awaited. Therefore the second meeting could not take place in want of details from JE to deliberate the technology.”
Gautam added in the letter: “The CPCB has already sent reminders for submission of technology to the project proponents.”
In his written response to Prof. Gautam on June 13, 2011 Mr. Anant Trivedi, a resident of Eshwar Nagar, Okhla area called on him “order a stop to further construction until you are fully satisfied with the safety of the technology and are happy that the handling of the waste will not hazardous to health.”
“It kis not possible that they have designed a plant and almost finished constructing it without being in possession of technical details of what it is supposed to do,” Trivedi said.
Disposal of hazardous fly ash, and the spread of contaminants like dioxin and furans as well as mercury and other heavy metals were apprehensions voiced at the CPCB meeting.
Okhla communities falling within a two kilometer radius of the plant and protesting include those from New Friends Colony, Sukhdev Vihar, Jasola Vihar, Sarita Vihar, Kalkaji and Jamia Nagar.
(END)
For Details: Gopal Krishna, ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA), Mb: 9818089660, E-mail: krishna2777@gmail.com
Arif Khan, General Secretary, Haji Colony RWA . Mobile: 9891519844
Anant Trivedi, RWA member, Ishwar Nagar. 011- 41672238, mobile: 9868502292
Vanya Joshi, Coordinator, Okhla Anti-Incineration Committee - 9873980694
Asha Arora, Co-coordinator, Okhla Anti-incineration Committee. Mobile-9711408421 .
Padma Agarwal Gen. Secy RWA Jasola Vihar - 9312212419
Praveen Shrivastava, RWA, Sarita Vihar - 9871039616
S. Khurana, Vice President Sukhdev Vihar RWA - 9810218150
Web: toxicswatch.blogspot.com
Facebook site Okhla ka Ghosla
Liability law no longer an obstacle to Russian reactor deal
Written By krishna on Wednesday, June 15, 2011 | 10:52 AM
Discussions with Russians on the net price for Kudankulam 3 & 4 are in final stages
India identified `nuclear parks' for reactors from Russia, France and the U.S.
Russians have sorted out the safety issues
NEW DELHI: The impasse in setting up new nuclear reactors in India due to the Nuclear Liability Act could end soon with India and Russia in the final stages of finalising a cost mark-up to cover the additional insurance burden that suppliers must bear as a result of the new law.
The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damages Act 2010 makes suppliers liable in case of an accident, both through the section giving operators a right of recourse against them (section 17) in the event of faulty equipment or design, and through normal tort law (section 46).
American, French and Russian suppliers, assured by New Delhi of lucrative orders for power reactors, have baulked at these two sections of the liability law. They claim it would be difficult for them to go ahead with the setting up of nuclear reactors because of the additional financial liability due to the higher insurance premia.
“Discussions with the Russians on the net price for Kudankulam 3 & 4 are in the final stages. We are working out how the Nuclear Liability Act plays on the price. There will be some change in the price and negotiations are nearing conclusion,'' official sources told The Hindu. They declined to spell out the quantum of additional costs or the percentage increase in the price of the proposed Russian origin reactors at Kudankulam.
India has identified `nuclear parks' for reactors originating from Russia, France and the U.S. after these countries played a pivotal role in ensuring a special exemption for India at the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), which prohibits its members from selling nuclear equipment to countries that do not allow international inspections over all their nuclear installations.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had discussed this issue with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev at the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) summit in China in April and they had agreed to speed up discussions since both countries had no other issues apart from the nuclear liability law hindering progress, unlike France and the U.S.
The French company, Areva, cannot go ahead with its plans due to India's inability to ink a civil nuclear agreement with Japan. Areva, as well as GE from the U.S., depend on Japan Steel Works (JSW) for reactors pressure vessels. The US companies too have Japanese equity in their civil nuclear ventures and cannot go ahead without an Indo-Japan civil nuclear pact, even if the nuclear liability issue is sorted out.
However, to get around this problem, officials hope that the South Korean Doosan Heavy Industries and a U.K. based company would be able to step in for Japanese companies if the civil nuclear pact with Japan remains elusive.
But till then, the Russians will remain in the lead. They have sorted out the safety issues and India's largest ever nuclear reactor, Kudankulam-I, based on Russian technology, is likely to go critical in the next few months. This reactor will be followed by another Russian reactor going critical at an adjoining site.
On the other hand, the political uncertainty in Tokyo in the wake of the Fukushima nuclear plant accident has dimmed the chances of a quick end to negotiations on a India-Japan civil nuclear agreement.
http://www.hindu.com/2011/06/09/stories/2011060958361100.htm
India identified `nuclear parks' for reactors from Russia, France and the U.S.
Russians have sorted out the safety issues
NEW DELHI: The impasse in setting up new nuclear reactors in India due to the Nuclear Liability Act could end soon with India and Russia in the final stages of finalising a cost mark-up to cover the additional insurance burden that suppliers must bear as a result of the new law.
The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damages Act 2010 makes suppliers liable in case of an accident, both through the section giving operators a right of recourse against them (section 17) in the event of faulty equipment or design, and through normal tort law (section 46).
American, French and Russian suppliers, assured by New Delhi of lucrative orders for power reactors, have baulked at these two sections of the liability law. They claim it would be difficult for them to go ahead with the setting up of nuclear reactors because of the additional financial liability due to the higher insurance premia.
“Discussions with the Russians on the net price for Kudankulam 3 & 4 are in the final stages. We are working out how the Nuclear Liability Act plays on the price. There will be some change in the price and negotiations are nearing conclusion,'' official sources told The Hindu. They declined to spell out the quantum of additional costs or the percentage increase in the price of the proposed Russian origin reactors at Kudankulam.
India has identified `nuclear parks' for reactors originating from Russia, France and the U.S. after these countries played a pivotal role in ensuring a special exemption for India at the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), which prohibits its members from selling nuclear equipment to countries that do not allow international inspections over all their nuclear installations.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had discussed this issue with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev at the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) summit in China in April and they had agreed to speed up discussions since both countries had no other issues apart from the nuclear liability law hindering progress, unlike France and the U.S.
The French company, Areva, cannot go ahead with its plans due to India's inability to ink a civil nuclear agreement with Japan. Areva, as well as GE from the U.S., depend on Japan Steel Works (JSW) for reactors pressure vessels. The US companies too have Japanese equity in their civil nuclear ventures and cannot go ahead without an Indo-Japan civil nuclear pact, even if the nuclear liability issue is sorted out.
However, to get around this problem, officials hope that the South Korean Doosan Heavy Industries and a U.K. based company would be able to step in for Japanese companies if the civil nuclear pact with Japan remains elusive.
But till then, the Russians will remain in the lead. They have sorted out the safety issues and India's largest ever nuclear reactor, Kudankulam-I, based on Russian technology, is likely to go critical in the next few months. This reactor will be followed by another Russian reactor going critical at an adjoining site.
On the other hand, the political uncertainty in Tokyo in the wake of the Fukushima nuclear plant accident has dimmed the chances of a quick end to negotiations on a India-Japan civil nuclear agreement.
http://www.hindu.com/2011/06/09/stories/2011060958361100.htm
World Bank & Water Quality/Quantity of Ganga River Basin
Note: The World Bank has been undertaking contradictory projects in the Ganga basin without any sense of accountability. World Bank Group's position has consistently been contrary to what river basin approach is all about. World Bank Group have been supporters of ecologically destructive Interlinking of Rivers project. The World Bank was formally requested by Government of India to provide long-term support to National Ganga River Basin Authority (NGRBA) through several phases of substantive financing and knowledge support. Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) for World Bank Assisted National Ganga River Basin Project (NGRBP) is organized into two volumes. The first volume reveals, "This report identified industrial pollution as one of the priamry sources of pollution, accounting for 25% of contamination in the basin. Additionally, the fact that only one-third of the sewage generated in the main-stem towns and cities receives treatment before entering the Ganga waters represents another major threat."
The second volume document says. "The Ganga basin (which also extends into parts of Nepal, China and Bangladesh) accounts for about 26 percent of India‟s landmass, 30 percent of its water resources, and more than 40 percent of its population."
The Access Initiative (TAI) of Washington based World Resources Institute (WRI) is funded by World Bank among other questionable corporations and organisations. They are now planning consultations with 'democratic' civil society groups on river basin planning. In effect, the text of the Ganga river basin is prepared by World Bank and then a discussion on it is also facilitated by them in a round about way to ensure 'participation' and 'access to information' unmindful of contradictory projects being undertaken by World Bank Group.
It is these very groups (claiming to represent citizens) who go to NGRBA meetings but do not bother to engage prior to or after with citizens and remain callous to demands for minutes of these meetings. The question which has remain unanswered is: do they represent their funders or the citizens of India?
Gopal Krishna
India Aims $1 Billion at Sacred but Filthy Ganga
NEW DELHI — Indian officials signed an agreement with the World Bank on Tuesday to use a $1 billion loan to finance the first major new effort in more than 20 years to cleanse the revered Ganges, one of the world’s dirtiest rivers.
One-third of India’s 1.2 billion people live along the banks of the 1,560-mile-long river, many of them relying on it for drinking, cooking and washing. Millions more visit for ritual baths to cleanse themselves of sin. But untreated sewage, agricultural runoff and industrial waste have fouled its waters for decades, and hydroelectric projects and dams threaten to choke off its waters in spots.
On Tuesday, a religious leader on a hunger strike over the effect of illegal mining on the state of the river, Swami Nigamanand, died after spending weeks in a coma..
The long-awaited loan is part of a government project that aims to halt the discharge of untreated wastewater into the river by 2020. The project, founded in 2009, replaced the 1986 Ganga Action Plan, the last large-scale attempt to address the pollution. That initiative was able to introduce waste water treatment in certain areas, it failed to halt raw waste disposal into the Ganges. Critics said it was inadequately financed and poorly managed.
Indian officials and representatives of the World Bank said Tuesday that they hoped the new project would be more successful. They cited the greater amount of money being invested, the broader focus on regional environmental health and a planned public education campaign.
“What we’re trying to do is take a step back and not look at just one sector — waste water — but take a larger sectoral approach,” said Genevieve Connors, a water resources specialist for the World Bank who is involved in the project.
But she noted that the task of cleaning a river was enormous, saying it “takes decades and costs hundreds of billions of dollars.”
Indian officials acknowledge that the Ganges is just one of many rivers that present public health problems. “Most of India’s rivers have become sewers,” said the environment minister, Jairam Ramesh. “We have to now really bring water into rivers.”
Japan helped to finance a cleanup project in the Yamuna River, the largest tributary to the Ganges, in 1993. But that project has largely failed to make a dent in the river’s pollution.
By NIDA NAJAR
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/world/asia/15ganges.html?_r=1&emc=eta1&pagewanted=print
The second volume document says. "The Ganga basin (which also extends into parts of Nepal, China and Bangladesh) accounts for about 26 percent of India‟s landmass, 30 percent of its water resources, and more than 40 percent of its population."
The Access Initiative (TAI) of Washington based World Resources Institute (WRI) is funded by World Bank among other questionable corporations and organisations. They are now planning consultations with 'democratic' civil society groups on river basin planning. In effect, the text of the Ganga river basin is prepared by World Bank and then a discussion on it is also facilitated by them in a round about way to ensure 'participation' and 'access to information' unmindful of contradictory projects being undertaken by World Bank Group.
It is these very groups (claiming to represent citizens) who go to NGRBA meetings but do not bother to engage prior to or after with citizens and remain callous to demands for minutes of these meetings. The question which has remain unanswered is: do they represent their funders or the citizens of India?
Gopal Krishna
India Aims $1 Billion at Sacred but Filthy Ganga
NEW DELHI — Indian officials signed an agreement with the World Bank on Tuesday to use a $1 billion loan to finance the first major new effort in more than 20 years to cleanse the revered Ganges, one of the world’s dirtiest rivers.
One-third of India’s 1.2 billion people live along the banks of the 1,560-mile-long river, many of them relying on it for drinking, cooking and washing. Millions more visit for ritual baths to cleanse themselves of sin. But untreated sewage, agricultural runoff and industrial waste have fouled its waters for decades, and hydroelectric projects and dams threaten to choke off its waters in spots.
On Tuesday, a religious leader on a hunger strike over the effect of illegal mining on the state of the river, Swami Nigamanand, died after spending weeks in a coma..
The long-awaited loan is part of a government project that aims to halt the discharge of untreated wastewater into the river by 2020. The project, founded in 2009, replaced the 1986 Ganga Action Plan, the last large-scale attempt to address the pollution. That initiative was able to introduce waste water treatment in certain areas, it failed to halt raw waste disposal into the Ganges. Critics said it was inadequately financed and poorly managed.
Indian officials and representatives of the World Bank said Tuesday that they hoped the new project would be more successful. They cited the greater amount of money being invested, the broader focus on regional environmental health and a planned public education campaign.
“What we’re trying to do is take a step back and not look at just one sector — waste water — but take a larger sectoral approach,” said Genevieve Connors, a water resources specialist for the World Bank who is involved in the project.
But she noted that the task of cleaning a river was enormous, saying it “takes decades and costs hundreds of billions of dollars.”
Indian officials acknowledge that the Ganges is just one of many rivers that present public health problems. “Most of India’s rivers have become sewers,” said the environment minister, Jairam Ramesh. “We have to now really bring water into rivers.”
Japan helped to finance a cleanup project in the Yamuna River, the largest tributary to the Ganges, in 1993. But that project has largely failed to make a dent in the river’s pollution.
By NIDA NAJAR
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/world/asia/15ganges.html?_r=1&emc=eta1&pagewanted=print
US Supports Listing of chrysotile asbestos in UN list of hazardous chemicals?
Written By krishna on Tuesday, June 14, 2011 | 7:47 AM
Sources reveal that US Government's position on endosulfan, alachlor, and aldicarb. It supports the listing of these chemicals. It also supports the listing of chrysotile asbestos but it is expected to remain silent on the issue during the discussion from 20=24 June in Geneva during the UN meeting since Canada (may India too) opposes it.
ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA) demands listing of chrysotile asbestos in the Prior Informed Consent (PIC) procedure list of hazardous materials at the 5th meeting of the Conference of Parties (COP5) to the UN's Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade.
Given the outcome of the Stockholm Convention on POPs at COP5, they do not expect endosulfan to be a big problem. Chrysotile asbestos to continues to be a huge problem for Rotterdam Convention's COP5 meeting in June 2011 but US position against chrysotile asbestos might be helpful.
ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA) demands listing of chrysotile asbestos in the Prior Informed Consent (PIC) procedure list of hazardous materials at the 5th meeting of the Conference of Parties (COP5) to the UN's Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade.
Given the outcome of the Stockholm Convention on POPs at COP5, they do not expect endosulfan to be a big problem. Chrysotile asbestos to continues to be a huge problem for Rotterdam Convention's COP5 meeting in June 2011 but US position against chrysotile asbestos might be helpful.
Holcim’s Indian Subsidiaries Condemned
Illegal Working Conditions in Holcim’s Indian Subsidiaries - The International Labour Conference in Geneva condemns Holcim
At the International Labour Conference in Geneva, the Building and Wood Workers’ International (BWI), the International Federation of Chemical, Energy, Mine and General Workers' Unions (ICEM) and the Swiss Trade Union Unia condemned Holcim for anti-worker and anti-union practices in its Indian subsidiaries ACC and ACL.
Holcim’s subsidiaries in India continue to employ about 1,200 temporary workers on less favourable conditions than those for their permanent employees, although an Indian court has found that to be illegal. Moreover, for past few weeks, the Holcim subsidiaries have attempted to muzzle the temporary workers’ union by accusing one of its top representatives of imaginary crimes such as theft. Ambet Yuson, BWI General Secretary, did not mince his words at the ILO Conference: "Holcim has a dual personality. On the one hand, the company adheres to the principles of the UN Global Compact, while on the other hand, it disclaims any responsibility for the anti-worker and at times illegal acts of its subsidiaries in India. In so doing, Holcim is flouting standards of the International Labour Organisation: the fundamental rights to non-discrimination in employment and to freedom of association."
Criminalisation of trade union leaders
Manfred Warda, ICEM General Secretary, said: "The Indian legislation on temporary work provides that temporary workers are entitled to the same wages and working conditions as permanent employees. The Holcim subsidiaries ACC and Ambuja Cement Holcim Limited have ignored those laws for years, despite courts finding in favour of temporary workers. Now the Holcim subsidiaries are trying to silence the temporary workers’ union leaders by painting them as criminals."
No profits without accountability
Vasco Pedrina, representative of Trade Union Unia and head of the Swiss workers’ delegation to the ILO Conference: "Holcim cannot evade its responsibility: it cannot pocket handsome profits from its factories in India, while at the same time withdrawing from its responsibility towards their employees and shifting it on to the local managers. That’s against the rules of the OECD and
the International Labour Organisation. If Holcim doesn’t change course, we’ll file complaints with the OECD and the ILO."
Appeal to Switzerland-based Holcim Group
Trade Union Unia, BWI and ICEM call on Switzerland's Markus Akermann, Holcim Group’s CEO and a member of the board of directors of various Indian companies, to intercede with the Indian subsidiaries so that they finally observe the country’s laws, convert the temporary contracts into permanent ones, participate in the social dialogue process as full members of the Indian
employers’ association for the cement industry, and sign and strictly comply with the collective agreement for the Indian cement industry.
For more information:
Vasco Pedrina, Trade Union Unia and head of the Swiss workers’ delegation, 079 772 37 47
Marion Hellmann, Building and Wood Workers’ International BWI, 079 474 83 70
Phee Jungsun, International Federation of Chemical, Energy, Mine and General Workers' Unions ICEM, 079 734 90 41
Trade Union Unia
Communication and Campaigns Department
Anne Rubin
Weltpoststrasse 20
3000 Bern 15
T +41 31 350 24 19
M +41 76 344 75 81
F +41 31 350 22 11
anne.rubin@unia.ch
www.unia.ch
At the International Labour Conference in Geneva, the Building and Wood Workers’ International (BWI), the International Federation of Chemical, Energy, Mine and General Workers' Unions (ICEM) and the Swiss Trade Union Unia condemned Holcim for anti-worker and anti-union practices in its Indian subsidiaries ACC and ACL.
Holcim’s subsidiaries in India continue to employ about 1,200 temporary workers on less favourable conditions than those for their permanent employees, although an Indian court has found that to be illegal. Moreover, for past few weeks, the Holcim subsidiaries have attempted to muzzle the temporary workers’ union by accusing one of its top representatives of imaginary crimes such as theft. Ambet Yuson, BWI General Secretary, did not mince his words at the ILO Conference: "Holcim has a dual personality. On the one hand, the company adheres to the principles of the UN Global Compact, while on the other hand, it disclaims any responsibility for the anti-worker and at times illegal acts of its subsidiaries in India. In so doing, Holcim is flouting standards of the International Labour Organisation: the fundamental rights to non-discrimination in employment and to freedom of association."
Criminalisation of trade union leaders
Manfred Warda, ICEM General Secretary, said: "The Indian legislation on temporary work provides that temporary workers are entitled to the same wages and working conditions as permanent employees. The Holcim subsidiaries ACC and Ambuja Cement Holcim Limited have ignored those laws for years, despite courts finding in favour of temporary workers. Now the Holcim subsidiaries are trying to silence the temporary workers’ union leaders by painting them as criminals."
No profits without accountability
Vasco Pedrina, representative of Trade Union Unia and head of the Swiss workers’ delegation to the ILO Conference: "Holcim cannot evade its responsibility: it cannot pocket handsome profits from its factories in India, while at the same time withdrawing from its responsibility towards their employees and shifting it on to the local managers. That’s against the rules of the OECD and
the International Labour Organisation. If Holcim doesn’t change course, we’ll file complaints with the OECD and the ILO."
Appeal to Switzerland-based Holcim Group
Trade Union Unia, BWI and ICEM call on Switzerland's Markus Akermann, Holcim Group’s CEO and a member of the board of directors of various Indian companies, to intercede with the Indian subsidiaries so that they finally observe the country’s laws, convert the temporary contracts into permanent ones, participate in the social dialogue process as full members of the Indian
employers’ association for the cement industry, and sign and strictly comply with the collective agreement for the Indian cement industry.
For more information:
Vasco Pedrina, Trade Union Unia and head of the Swiss workers’ delegation, 079 772 37 47
Marion Hellmann, Building and Wood Workers’ International BWI, 079 474 83 70
Phee Jungsun, International Federation of Chemical, Energy, Mine and General Workers' Unions ICEM, 079 734 90 41
Trade Union Unia
Communication and Campaigns Department
Anne Rubin
Weltpoststrasse 20
3000 Bern 15
T +41 31 350 24 19
M +41 76 344 75 81
F +41 31 350 22 11
anne.rubin@unia.ch
www.unia.ch
Proposal for waste to energy incinerator plant in Patna
In Patna, municipal solid waste (MSW) is disposed of in an unscientific manner without considering environmental impacts. The municipal solid waste to energy incinerator plants proposed at Bairiya village near Patna, Bihar is based on a tried, tested and failed technology. In the 1990s, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi had built a similar plant based on Danish incinerator technology at the cost of US $ 3.5 million to process 300 tons of municipal solid waste (MSW) per day to generate 3 MW. It failed to operate after 7 days due to very low calorific value of the MSW.
Bihar government had announced a Rs 36-crore municipal waste to energy project under the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission in 2007 for Patna Municipal Corporation (PMC) to be completed by 2012. Some 80 acres of land was acquired in the Ramachak Bairiya village, about 35km from Patna and New Bypass. It was joint effort of the central and state government. Patna has a population of 18 lakh.
The state capital generates 750 metric tonnes of solid waste per day. It is projected that by 2038, Patna will generate 1,500 metric tonnes of MSW per day. The per capita MSW generation per day 0.5 kg per day in Patna.
It was reported that the state government had released Rs 18 crore for the project. Central government had released Rs 5 crore for the same.
One does not know the fate of the proposed landfill site on the outskirts of the state capital which estimated to cost Rs 145 crore. This too was proposed at the Ramchak Bairiya village. What knows for sure is that it s Union Ministry of New and Renewable Energy which is distorting waste management in cities and states by providing subsidies to waste to energy incinerators despite repeated failures.
Bihar government had announced a Rs 36-crore municipal waste to energy project under the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission in 2007 for Patna Municipal Corporation (PMC) to be completed by 2012. Some 80 acres of land was acquired in the Ramachak Bairiya village, about 35km from Patna and New Bypass. It was joint effort of the central and state government. Patna has a population of 18 lakh.
The state capital generates 750 metric tonnes of solid waste per day. It is projected that by 2038, Patna will generate 1,500 metric tonnes of MSW per day. The per capita MSW generation per day 0.5 kg per day in Patna.
It was reported that the state government had released Rs 18 crore for the project. Central government had released Rs 5 crore for the same.
One does not know the fate of the proposed landfill site on the outskirts of the state capital which estimated to cost Rs 145 crore. This too was proposed at the Ramchak Bairiya village. What knows for sure is that it s Union Ministry of New and Renewable Energy which is distorting waste management in cities and states by providing subsidies to waste to energy incinerators despite repeated failures.
Human health versus political health
Cape Breton has its share of place names that reflect the island’s industrial history.
There’s Sydney Mines, Reserve Mines, Victoria Mines, Gardiner Mines, Whitney Pier, Dominion and Donkin.
No local place name, though, seems to celebrate the pugnacious pride a people have in the industry that sustains their community, no matter how dangerous, than Asbestos, Que.
The people of Asbestos have to be self-assertive indeed to withstand the swelling tide of attacks originating around the world against the community’s chrysotile asbestos industry.
The product is banned from use Canada, but it’s exported to developing countries such as India and Mexico.
Asbestos was once celebrated as a “miracle mineral” because of its fireproof properties, strength and sound absorption.
It was used in building materials and household appliances in Canada and abroad. But eventually researchers determined that asbestos exposure could lead to the respiratory disease asbestosis, lung cancer, and an aggressive cancer of the protective lining of some internal organs called mesothelioma.
The kind of debate witnessed locally over whether or not fluoride in drinking water is harmful to human health doesn’t exist with respect to asbestos. There are no ifs, ands or buts about it. Asbestos is bad for you.
That’s why it’s such an easy target.
In July 2010, the Canadian Cancer Society wrote a letter to Quebec Premier Jean Charest urging his government to allow the mine in Asbestos to die, prompting the town to cancel its Relay for Life fundraiser for cancer research.
Also that month, the British Broadcasting Corporation aired a series on the asbestos trade, highlighting the fact that Canada has spent millions of dollars promoting asbestos abroad.
And in May, “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart” mocked the mine and its management.
The most recent admonition comes from the United Nations-affiliated International Labour Organization, which argues that because Canada is a signatory to the 1986 Asbestos Convention, it’s obligated to “keep abreast of technical progress and scientific knowledge” on asbestos.
Canadian politicians know asbestos is dangerous. That’s why it’s banned in Canada. That’s why it’s being removed from homes, businesses, Parliament and the prime minister’s official residence. But that doesn’t stop politicians from backing the industry.
“The only party that defends the chrysotile industry is our party, the Conservative Party,” Prime Minister Stephen Harper said during a recent election campaign stop in Asbestos.
And the Charest government recently announced a $58-million loan guarantee to the Jeffrey asbestos mine.
The federal and provincial governments aren’t going to allow concerns over human health to compromise their political health.
Topics: Canadian Cancer Society, British Broadcasting Corporation, United Nations, Canada, Asbestos, Cape Breton
Published on June 14, 2011 Staff ~ The Cape Breton Post http://www.capebretonpost.com/Opinion/Editorial/2011-06-14/article-2581418/Human-health-versus-political-health/1
There’s Sydney Mines, Reserve Mines, Victoria Mines, Gardiner Mines, Whitney Pier, Dominion and Donkin.
No local place name, though, seems to celebrate the pugnacious pride a people have in the industry that sustains their community, no matter how dangerous, than Asbestos, Que.
The people of Asbestos have to be self-assertive indeed to withstand the swelling tide of attacks originating around the world against the community’s chrysotile asbestos industry.
The product is banned from use Canada, but it’s exported to developing countries such as India and Mexico.
Asbestos was once celebrated as a “miracle mineral” because of its fireproof properties, strength and sound absorption.
It was used in building materials and household appliances in Canada and abroad. But eventually researchers determined that asbestos exposure could lead to the respiratory disease asbestosis, lung cancer, and an aggressive cancer of the protective lining of some internal organs called mesothelioma.
The kind of debate witnessed locally over whether or not fluoride in drinking water is harmful to human health doesn’t exist with respect to asbestos. There are no ifs, ands or buts about it. Asbestos is bad for you.
That’s why it’s such an easy target.
In July 2010, the Canadian Cancer Society wrote a letter to Quebec Premier Jean Charest urging his government to allow the mine in Asbestos to die, prompting the town to cancel its Relay for Life fundraiser for cancer research.
Also that month, the British Broadcasting Corporation aired a series on the asbestos trade, highlighting the fact that Canada has spent millions of dollars promoting asbestos abroad.
And in May, “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart” mocked the mine and its management.
The most recent admonition comes from the United Nations-affiliated International Labour Organization, which argues that because Canada is a signatory to the 1986 Asbestos Convention, it’s obligated to “keep abreast of technical progress and scientific knowledge” on asbestos.
Canadian politicians know asbestos is dangerous. That’s why it’s banned in Canada. That’s why it’s being removed from homes, businesses, Parliament and the prime minister’s official residence. But that doesn’t stop politicians from backing the industry.
“The only party that defends the chrysotile industry is our party, the Conservative Party,” Prime Minister Stephen Harper said during a recent election campaign stop in Asbestos.
And the Charest government recently announced a $58-million loan guarantee to the Jeffrey asbestos mine.
The federal and provincial governments aren’t going to allow concerns over human health to compromise their political health.
Topics: Canadian Cancer Society, British Broadcasting Corporation, United Nations, Canada, Asbestos, Cape Breton
Published on June 14, 2011 Staff ~ The Cape Breton Post http://www.capebretonpost.com/Opinion/Editorial/2011-06-14/article-2581418/Human-health-versus-political-health/1
Indians inhale slow poison as roof demand feeds asbestos imports
Written By krishna on Saturday, June 11, 2011 | 8:31 AM
One THING Rajendra Pevekar remembers from falling asleep on his father’s chest as a child is the smell of burnt plastic and the shiny specks of dust sticking to his clothes.
What Pevekar did not know was that the dust had a name – asbestos – and a record of wrecking the lungs of those who inhale it.
Only last year did he draw a connection between the fibre from the car parts factory where his father worked sweeping the floor, the man’s early death, the disease that left his mother crippled and his own shortness of breath.
“This is a slow poison,” Pevekar said at his home in Mumbai’s working class neighbourhood of Ghatkopar. “It destroys your lungs and you don’t even know it.”
Pevekar’s mother was among the first Indians last December to get paid about 700 000 rupees (R104 000) – more than 10 times her son’s annual income – from a trust established by factory owner Turner & Newall in Manchester, England. The payment was compensation for asbestosis, an occupational disease first identified in the UK in 1906.
Last month, another 40 workers received payouts, bringing the year’s tally to a record 70 million rupees.
The lessons learned by nations like the UK and Germany, which banned asbestos in factories decades ago, are slow to take hold in India, where demand for a sturdy material to make roofs for millions of slum dwellers has overpowered concerns about worker safety.
India is the largest importer of asbestos, according to the UN Commodity Trade Statistics Database.
Most of it goes into making corrugated roofing sheets that sell for as little as 300 rupees.
More than 100 000 people in India are employed by companies producing the material, according to the Asbestos Cement Producers Association, an industry lobby group.
“It is totally outrageous,” said Gopal Krishna, the founder of the Ban Asbestos Network of India. “We’ve known for many years that this stuff is deadly and the government is not banning it. In fact, they are making asbestos artificially cheaper by giving incentives.”
A 15 percent duty is payable on asbestos imports, according to the Ministry of Commerce and Industry. The tariff, which stood at 78 percent in 1995, had been gradually cut over the past decade, Krishna said. Imports totalled 322 200 tons in 2009, UN data show.
Asbestos mining is allowed for permit holders, though the government stopped granting licences in 1986.
Homes would be unaffordable for 38 million families in India by 2030 based on projected market prices, McKinsey estimated last year.
The need for cheap roofing and piping material is fuelling asbestos shipments from Russia, Brazil and Canada, but the use of the raw material is restricted in Canadian factories.
Pevekar’s troubles began when his 71-year-old mother, Indira, developed a debilitating shortness of breath in 2003, 11 years after her husband died from an ailment diagnosed as bronchial asthma.
She has been hospitalised more than six times since then, recalls Pevekar, who ferries her to medical appointments at least once a month, while bills began to mount.
“We pawned jewellery, borrowed from friends, relatives and money lenders to pay for all these expenses,” he said.
That forced him and his brother to stay in the same slum house where they grew up and continue to care for Indira, who is partially bedridden and cannot use the toilet without help.
Pevekar said he came to understand the connection between his mother’s woes, his father’s death and his own pulmonary problems in February last year, when he attended an event organised by a non-profit organisation to inform workers and their children of what is called secondary exposure to asbestos.
“Before that, I had no idea,” he said. “At the event, I asked the organisers to check my mother for asbestosis.”
Indira and another worker’s wife were the first two women to receive compensation from Turner in India, according to Pralhad Malvadkar, the head of the Occupational Health and Safety Centre, which organised the event Pevekar attended.
Natural fibres
Asbestos is the name given to six natural fibres about 1 200 times smaller than a strand of human hair that can be woven like fabric.
Their resistance to fire, heat and chemicals makes them well suited to the construction and motoring industries.
The fibrous mineral has been used for the last 140 years in construction. Evidence of its harmful effects began appearing a century ago and national bans were first enacted in the 1970s.
Harm occurs when the asbestos fibres are inhaled. They bruise the lung tissue, leaving behind scars that accumulate and cripple the organ’s ability to process oxygen, says Arthur Frank, a professor of public health at Drexel University in Philadelphia.
“If you think of the lung as a balloon that expands and contracts, it’s as if the capacity of the balloon is reduced,” says Frank, who specialises in asbestos-related diseases. Chest X-rays identify the scars with characteristic squiggle marks.
The fibres can lead to the development of lung cancers, including a rare malignancy of the lining of the lungs and abdomen known as mesothelioma, which can be fatal within 18 months.
“Even a day or a month at an asbestos factory can do you in,” says Frank. “There is no safe minimum level of exposure.”
It can take 20 years or more for symptoms to appear, according to the US National Institutes of Health’s website.
India has ranked behind China as the briskest-growing major economy for much of the past decade. The speed of industrialisation has outpaced improvements in infant survival, infrastructure and workplace conditions.
“It’s a difficult issue,” says David Heymann, the chairman of the UK Health Protection Agency. “Some countries say: ‘We’re developing just like you did during the industrial revolution.’ The difference is now we know what asbestos does.”
India’s use of the material since the 1980s is equal to the amount used by the UK during its entire industrial history, according to estimates by the International Ban Asbestos Secretariat, an umbrella group of non-profit organisations.
As many as 55 countries including Japan and all members of the EU have banned asbestos in factories, buildings and car parts. The US Environmental Protection Agency selectively bans the material in products such as spray-on paint and pipe insulation.
Canada was India’s second-largest overseas supplier of asbestos in 2009, trailing Russia, according to the UN Commodity Trade Statistics database.
The Quebec government approved in April a $60 million (R405.7m) loan guarantee to a group of Canadian and Indian investors, enabling them to expand production at the Jeffrey Mine, said Jolyane Pronovost, a spokeswoman for Quebec’s economic development ministry.
To secure the loan guarantee, the owners of the Jeffrey mine had to commit to annual checks by an independent auditor of their clients to ensure that the white, or chrysotile, form of asbestos was being used safely and met Quebec standards, Pronovost said.
Safe use
“Our position hasn’t changed,” she said. “We support the safe use of chrysotile.”
The decision, opposed by public health groups including the Canadian Cancer Society, might allow one of Canada’s last remaining asbestos mines to produce 250 000 tons a year, said investor Baljit Chadha, an Indian-born businessman.
At that capacity, the mine would produce more than an eighth of global asbestos production, according to 2010 estimates from the US Geological Survey. About 40 percent of the mineral might end up in India, and sales would generate $130m in revenue, Chadha said.
“I’m going into this with an absolutely clear conscience,” said Chadha, who disputes the risks asbestos poses, citing an open letter from six European and North American doctors published last year which said the chrysotile that emerged from the mine was not dangerous for workers as long as it was “properly controlled”.
All forms of asbestos are carcinogenic, according to the World Health Organisation said. The UN agency in Geneva estimates that one person dies every five minutes from an asbestos-related disease somewhere in the world, causing 107 000 deaths annually.
Canada’s Natural Resources Ministry declined to comment on asbestos exports to India.
While living under an asbestos roof may be less harmful than working with it in a factory, the risk is not negligible, says Frank. Rainwater can seep through the roof, mixing with the fibre.
Pevekar installed a plastic sheet under his roof last year after learning about the risks of asbestos, stopping tainted water from dripping onto his sleeping children like it had for years before. – Bloomberg
http://www.iol.co.za/business/international/indians-inhale-slow-poison-as-roof-demand-feeds-asbestos-imports-1.1081237
What Pevekar did not know was that the dust had a name – asbestos – and a record of wrecking the lungs of those who inhale it.
Only last year did he draw a connection between the fibre from the car parts factory where his father worked sweeping the floor, the man’s early death, the disease that left his mother crippled and his own shortness of breath.
“This is a slow poison,” Pevekar said at his home in Mumbai’s working class neighbourhood of Ghatkopar. “It destroys your lungs and you don’t even know it.”
Pevekar’s mother was among the first Indians last December to get paid about 700 000 rupees (R104 000) – more than 10 times her son’s annual income – from a trust established by factory owner Turner & Newall in Manchester, England. The payment was compensation for asbestosis, an occupational disease first identified in the UK in 1906.
Last month, another 40 workers received payouts, bringing the year’s tally to a record 70 million rupees.
The lessons learned by nations like the UK and Germany, which banned asbestos in factories decades ago, are slow to take hold in India, where demand for a sturdy material to make roofs for millions of slum dwellers has overpowered concerns about worker safety.
India is the largest importer of asbestos, according to the UN Commodity Trade Statistics Database.
Most of it goes into making corrugated roofing sheets that sell for as little as 300 rupees.
More than 100 000 people in India are employed by companies producing the material, according to the Asbestos Cement Producers Association, an industry lobby group.
“It is totally outrageous,” said Gopal Krishna, the founder of the Ban Asbestos Network of India. “We’ve known for many years that this stuff is deadly and the government is not banning it. In fact, they are making asbestos artificially cheaper by giving incentives.”
A 15 percent duty is payable on asbestos imports, according to the Ministry of Commerce and Industry. The tariff, which stood at 78 percent in 1995, had been gradually cut over the past decade, Krishna said. Imports totalled 322 200 tons in 2009, UN data show.
Asbestos mining is allowed for permit holders, though the government stopped granting licences in 1986.
Homes would be unaffordable for 38 million families in India by 2030 based on projected market prices, McKinsey estimated last year.
The need for cheap roofing and piping material is fuelling asbestos shipments from Russia, Brazil and Canada, but the use of the raw material is restricted in Canadian factories.
Pevekar’s troubles began when his 71-year-old mother, Indira, developed a debilitating shortness of breath in 2003, 11 years after her husband died from an ailment diagnosed as bronchial asthma.
She has been hospitalised more than six times since then, recalls Pevekar, who ferries her to medical appointments at least once a month, while bills began to mount.
“We pawned jewellery, borrowed from friends, relatives and money lenders to pay for all these expenses,” he said.
That forced him and his brother to stay in the same slum house where they grew up and continue to care for Indira, who is partially bedridden and cannot use the toilet without help.
Pevekar said he came to understand the connection between his mother’s woes, his father’s death and his own pulmonary problems in February last year, when he attended an event organised by a non-profit organisation to inform workers and their children of what is called secondary exposure to asbestos.
“Before that, I had no idea,” he said. “At the event, I asked the organisers to check my mother for asbestosis.”
Indira and another worker’s wife were the first two women to receive compensation from Turner in India, according to Pralhad Malvadkar, the head of the Occupational Health and Safety Centre, which organised the event Pevekar attended.
Natural fibres
Asbestos is the name given to six natural fibres about 1 200 times smaller than a strand of human hair that can be woven like fabric.
Their resistance to fire, heat and chemicals makes them well suited to the construction and motoring industries.
The fibrous mineral has been used for the last 140 years in construction. Evidence of its harmful effects began appearing a century ago and national bans were first enacted in the 1970s.
Harm occurs when the asbestos fibres are inhaled. They bruise the lung tissue, leaving behind scars that accumulate and cripple the organ’s ability to process oxygen, says Arthur Frank, a professor of public health at Drexel University in Philadelphia.
“If you think of the lung as a balloon that expands and contracts, it’s as if the capacity of the balloon is reduced,” says Frank, who specialises in asbestos-related diseases. Chest X-rays identify the scars with characteristic squiggle marks.
The fibres can lead to the development of lung cancers, including a rare malignancy of the lining of the lungs and abdomen known as mesothelioma, which can be fatal within 18 months.
“Even a day or a month at an asbestos factory can do you in,” says Frank. “There is no safe minimum level of exposure.”
It can take 20 years or more for symptoms to appear, according to the US National Institutes of Health’s website.
India has ranked behind China as the briskest-growing major economy for much of the past decade. The speed of industrialisation has outpaced improvements in infant survival, infrastructure and workplace conditions.
“It’s a difficult issue,” says David Heymann, the chairman of the UK Health Protection Agency. “Some countries say: ‘We’re developing just like you did during the industrial revolution.’ The difference is now we know what asbestos does.”
India’s use of the material since the 1980s is equal to the amount used by the UK during its entire industrial history, according to estimates by the International Ban Asbestos Secretariat, an umbrella group of non-profit organisations.
As many as 55 countries including Japan and all members of the EU have banned asbestos in factories, buildings and car parts. The US Environmental Protection Agency selectively bans the material in products such as spray-on paint and pipe insulation.
Canada was India’s second-largest overseas supplier of asbestos in 2009, trailing Russia, according to the UN Commodity Trade Statistics database.
The Quebec government approved in April a $60 million (R405.7m) loan guarantee to a group of Canadian and Indian investors, enabling them to expand production at the Jeffrey Mine, said Jolyane Pronovost, a spokeswoman for Quebec’s economic development ministry.
To secure the loan guarantee, the owners of the Jeffrey mine had to commit to annual checks by an independent auditor of their clients to ensure that the white, or chrysotile, form of asbestos was being used safely and met Quebec standards, Pronovost said.
Safe use
“Our position hasn’t changed,” she said. “We support the safe use of chrysotile.”
The decision, opposed by public health groups including the Canadian Cancer Society, might allow one of Canada’s last remaining asbestos mines to produce 250 000 tons a year, said investor Baljit Chadha, an Indian-born businessman.
At that capacity, the mine would produce more than an eighth of global asbestos production, according to 2010 estimates from the US Geological Survey. About 40 percent of the mineral might end up in India, and sales would generate $130m in revenue, Chadha said.
“I’m going into this with an absolutely clear conscience,” said Chadha, who disputes the risks asbestos poses, citing an open letter from six European and North American doctors published last year which said the chrysotile that emerged from the mine was not dangerous for workers as long as it was “properly controlled”.
All forms of asbestos are carcinogenic, according to the World Health Organisation said. The UN agency in Geneva estimates that one person dies every five minutes from an asbestos-related disease somewhere in the world, causing 107 000 deaths annually.
Canada’s Natural Resources Ministry declined to comment on asbestos exports to India.
While living under an asbestos roof may be less harmful than working with it in a factory, the risk is not negligible, says Frank. Rainwater can seep through the roof, mixing with the fibre.
Pevekar installed a plastic sheet under his roof last year after learning about the risks of asbestos, stopping tainted water from dripping onto his sleeping children like it had for years before. – Bloomberg
http://www.iol.co.za/business/international/indians-inhale-slow-poison-as-roof-demand-feeds-asbestos-imports-1.1081237