ToxicsWatch
Alliance (TWA)
To
Shri E K Bharat Bhushan
Chairperson
Inter-Ministerial Committee
(IMC) on Shipbreaking
Union Ministry of Steel
Government of India
New Delhi
March 29, 2013
Subject- Statement of concern on the flawed proposal for
allocation of decision making to Union Ministry of Shipping under Shipbreaking
Code 2013, Hong Kong Convention
Sir,
Pursuant
to our discussion in person on March 28, 2013 in your office, this is to draw
your urgent attention towards the proposal for allocation of decision making
about ship breaking/recycling to Union Ministry of Shipping under Shipbreaking
Code 2013 which is deeply flawed. This is surprising because after you took
over the sensitivity of the IMC towards the most vulnerable migrant workers
involved in ship breaking is visible in the minutes of the IMC.
We
submit that the particular aspect of 53 page Shipbreaking Code 2013 regarding
allocation of ship breaking related work to Ministry of Shipping needs to be
re-visited in order to comply with the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
We wish to express strong reservation about the proposal
mentioned at clause 8.3.6 in page 43 wherein it is stated that “In the event of
any question arising out of the interpretation of any of the clauses of the
regulations, the decision of the Ministry of Shipping shall be final”.
We submit that the clause 1.3.7 of the Draft Code on
Regulations for Safe and Environmentally Sound Ship Recycling dated 30.9.2010
published by Union Ministry of Steel reads: “Since the subject matter of ship
breaking at present remains with the Ministry of Steel as per the list of
subjects allocated to the Ministry of Steel, under the Government of India
(Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961, the Ministry of Steel will oversee
implementation of the Code on Ship Recycling Regulations and be responsible for
its amendments and updating. “ We are unable understand why this provision has
been removed from the final Code.
We submit that in an affidavit filed in the Hon’ble
Supreme Court on July 16, 2012 by Shri Sugandh Shripad Gadkar, Deputy Director
General (Technical), DG Shipping, Mumbai stated that the Ministry of Shipping
“does not come in picture”. The affidavit was filed in the Writ Petition
(Civil) No.657 of 1995. It is in this very petition that the Hon’ble Court gave
the direction for creation of Code. We wish to know if the Ministry of
Shipping “does not come in picture” till July 16, 2012, which internal and external
forces have brought it in the picture. The circumstances which led to this
decision merit a high level inquiry because issues of shipbreaking are also
linked to issues of maritime and national security as has been recorded
repeatedly in the minutes of the IMC.
This aspect appears to be influenced by the supporters of
the anti-India, Hong Kong Convention on ship breaking/recycling of
International Maritime Organisation (IMO) and proposed EU amendment to their
Waste Shipment Regulation. This proposal is contrary to all the work done by
Inter-Ministerial Committee (IMC) on Shipbreaking since its creation in 2004 in
compliance with the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dated October 14,
2003 in the Writ Petition (Civil) No.657 of 1995. The proposed allocation of
decision making to Union Ministry of Shipping under Shipbreaking Code 2013 is
in violation of the Hon’ble Court order and Basel Convention on Transboundary
Movement of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal. It is an anti-worker and
anti-environment step.
We submit that a Union Ministry of Shipping informed the
Rajya Sabha on August 10, 2010 about its failure to get “Different type of
dangerous and Hazardous goods” lying at different ports from different dates
starting from March 1983 removed. In a specific case of containers of “Methyl
Monomer” lying at New Mangalore port, it was stated that it is there because of
“Inadequate storage space in the factory premises of M/s BASF, Mangalore”, the
importer. BASF is the world's largest producer of acrylic monomer. BASF is the
largest chemical company in the world and is headquartered in Germany. Is it
convincing that such a company has “Inadequate storage space in the factory
premises”? The reply is attached.
We want to know as to what is the rationale of transferring
decision making with regard to ship breaking to a ministry which has admittedly
failed to save country’s coastal environment from “Different type of dangerous
and Hazardous goods”.
We
earnestly seek your attention towards the strong apprehension that European
lobbies are at work to make Ministry of Shipping the focal point for ship
breaking/recycling because the Ministry in question and Gujarat Maritime Board
(GMB) appear to have been persuaded to support IMO’s anti-environment and
anti-worker Hong Kong Convention on Ship Recycling. GMB’s act of omission and
commission are numerous. Their compliance record with the recommendations of
IMC dated October 18, 2012 is a case in point.
We
strongly object to the clause 8.4.1 “(i) On ratification of International
Maritime Organisation (IMO) Convention on ship recycling by the Government of
India and any subsequent changes to the IMO Convention on ship recycling”
because this Convention is against India’s national interest. The text of the
Convention was prepared by IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC)
at the behest of the ship owning companies of the developed countries in
general and European one in particular. This Hong Kong Convention was adopted
by the IMO in May 2009 amidst condemnation and criticism by groups working on
human rights, environmental, labor and even the shipbreaking industry as it
fails to prevent the transboundary movement of hazardous wastes found within
obsolete ships. It does nothing to stop the human rights and environmental
abuses of the infamous shipbreaking yards like the located on Alang beach. The
Convention fails to comply with the letter and spirit of the Basel Convention
with regard toxic wastes like end-of-life ships.
We
strongly object to the meek endorsement of the Hong Kong Convention on the
Recycling of Ships. The Hong Kong Convention does not represent an “equivalent
level of control” to the Basel Convention as was called for by the Parties to
that United Nations Environment Programme Convention. This promotes the status
quo with regard to exploitation of workers and the coastal environment by the
global shipping industry at the end of the life of a ship.
We
submit that the Convention fails to reflect Basel Convention’s core obligation
- minimisation of transboundary movements of hazardous waste, and as such will
not prevent hazardous wastes such as asbestos, PCBs, old fuels, and heavy
metals from being exported to the poorest communities and most desperate
workers in developing countries.
It
fails to end the fatally flawed method of dismantling ships known as “beaching”
where ships are cut open on tidal flats. This is required because on a beach it
is impossible to contain oils and toxic contaminants from entering the marine
environment; safely use cranes alongside ships to lift heavy cut pieces or to
rescue workers; bring emergency equipment to the workers or the ships and
protect the fragile coastal environmental zone from the hazardous wastes on
ships. It allows hazardous substances from end-of-life ships to enter India
outwitting the motive of the Basel Convention and leaving a toxic legacy for
generations to come. The Basel Convention covers the ship recycling and
disposal but ship owners of the developed countries do not like it. In
violation of the judgment of the Supreme Court of India which calls for prior
decontamination of the ship in the country of export, the Hong Kong Convention
fails to ensure the fundamental principle of “Prior Informed Consent”. The “reporting”
takes place only after the hazardous waste ship arrives in the importing
country’s territory that a competent authority has the right to object and the
objection allowed is not to the importation but to the ship recycling plan or
ship recycling facility permit. Thus, India is forced to receive
hazardous waste in the form of ships. The Convention ignores Polluter
Pays/Producer Responsibility Principle, Environmental Justice Principle, Waste
Prevention/Substitution Principles and Principle of National Self Sufficiency
in Waste Management.
We
submit that the Convention grants legal recognition to externalization of the
real costs and liabilities of ships at end-of-life by the shipping companies of
Europe, USA, Japan and other developed countries. It does not provide an
“equivalent level of control” to that provided by the Basel Convention. Even
United Nations Commission on Human Rights’ Special Rapporteur has concluded
that the Hong Kong Convention does not represent an Equivalent Level of
Control, developed countries like USA, Japan and countries of European Union
are complicit in writing the obituary of the Basel Convention’s rules against
transfer of toxic waste to developing countries like India. The shipping
companies of the developed countries have prevailed on UN’s IMO to create a
legal regime that suits their commercial interest unmindful of the
environmental and human cost setting a very bad precedent. These companies are
so powerful that in order to make national laws and ministries subservient they
have engineered the allocation of decision making regarding ship breaking from
Union Steel Ministry to Union Shipping Ministry despite the fact that the
latter does not have any competence to supervise secondary steel production.
We
submit that the European Commission’s disregard for their legal obligations
under the Basel Convention is influenced shipping companies to further
facilitate the export of their hazardous end-of-life ships to countries like
India. The European Commission’s proposal on ship recycling to amend
European Waste Shipment Regulation was published on March 23, 2012.
We
submit that the proposed amendment to the regulation seeks to remove
end-of-life ships from the European Waste Shipment Regulation, which is the
EU’s implementing legislation of the Basel Convention on the Control of
Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal, and the Basel
Ban Amendment. Both related UN norms prohibit the export of all forms of
hazardous waste from EU Member States to non-OECD countries including
end-of-life ships. The Basel Convention includes ships under its regime when
they are to be recycled or disposed of and when they contain hazardous
materials. Both the EU and each EU Member State have ratified the Basel
Convention and the Basel Ban. Therefore, they have a treaty obligation to
adhere to them but the proposed amendment is an act of EU attempting to desert
Basel Convention and the Basel Ban. India has ratified the Convention.
Government of India should ratify the Basel Ban to stop hazardous waste
trade.
We
submit that under the Basel Convention end-of-life vessels are considered
hazardous wastes and is sensitive to adverse impact of hazardous waste
generating global shipping industry on coastal environmental health but the
proposed IMO and EU legislations puts profit above gnawing environmental and
occupational health concerns. The fact is that callousness and complicity with
regard to environmental and occupational health makes them fit cases of
corporate crimes. The European Commission’s proposal not only undermines the
Basel Ban, which Europe has implemented and championed, it is also illegal
under the Basel Convention. Any proposal to remove ships from the Waste
Shipment Regulation is in breach of EU and EU Member States’ legal obligations
under the Basel Convention. The EU’s proposed legislation attempting to
unilaterally exempt a certain category of hazardous waste covered by the Basel
Convention, namely end-of-life ships, from the control mechanisms of the
Convention is illegal under international law and EU law. The stark act of
European Commission unilaterally departing from its international legal
obligations under the Basel Convention merits strong criticism.
In
view of the above, we request you to ensure that Ministry of Shipping is not
handed over the task of decision making with regard to ship breaking and make
efforts to ensure that entry of end-of-life ships are compliant with
obligations under Basel Convention since the Hong Kong Convention does not
provide “equivalent level of control” as it does not have legal competence to
undertake environmentally sound disposal of such ships.
We
will share detailed comments on other aspects of the Shipbreaking Code 2013
shortly since we had given our comments on the Draft Code.
Thanking
You
Yours faithfully
Gopal Krishna
Convener
ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA)
New Delhi
Mb: 9818089660
Phone: +91-11-2651781
Fax: +91-11-26517814
E-mail:krishna1715@gmail.com
Web: http://www.toxicswatch.com
Web: http://www.toxicswatch.com
Cc
Dr Manmohan Singh, Prime Minister
Dr Manmohan Singh, Prime Minister
Shri Beni Prasad Verma, Union Minister of
Steel
Shri Anand Sharma, Union Minister of Commerce & Industry
Shri G K Vasan, Union Minister of Shipping
Shri A K Antony, Union Defence Minister
Smt Jayanthi Natrajan, Union Minister of Environment & Forests
Shri Jyotiraditya Madhavrao Scindia, Union Minister of State, Ministry of Commerce & Industry
Chairman & Members, Parliamentary Standing Committee on Science, Technology, Environment & Forests
Chairman & Members, Parliamentary Standing Committee on Transport, Tourism & Culture
Shri Anand Sharma, Union Minister of Commerce & Industry
Shri G K Vasan, Union Minister of Shipping
Shri A K Antony, Union Defence Minister
Smt Jayanthi Natrajan, Union Minister of Environment & Forests
Shri Jyotiraditya Madhavrao Scindia, Union Minister of State, Ministry of Commerce & Industry
Chairman & Members, Parliamentary Standing Committee on Science, Technology, Environment & Forests
Chairman & Members, Parliamentary Standing Committee on Transport, Tourism & Culture
Shri A K Seth, Cabinet Secretary, Government
of India
Shri R K Singh, Secretary, Union Ministry of Home Affairs
Secretary, Union Ministry of Commerce & Industry
Secretary, Union Ministry of Shipping
Secretary, Union Ministry of Environment & Forests
Secretary, Union Ministry of Defence
Secretary, Union Ministry of Steel
Shri R K Singh, Secretary, Union Ministry of Home Affairs
Secretary, Union Ministry of Commerce & Industry
Secretary, Union Ministry of Shipping
Secretary, Union Ministry of Environment & Forests
Secretary, Union Ministry of Defence
Secretary, Union Ministry of Steel
Dr Mrutunjay Sarangi, Secretary, Union
Ministry of Labour
Smt. Vijay Laxmi Joshi, Additional Secretary , Union
Ministry of Commerce & Industry
Ms Meera Mehrishi, Additional Secretary, HSMD, Union Minister of Environment & Forests
Shri Madhusudan Prasad, Additional Secretary, Union Ministry of Commerce & Industry Shri Rajeev Kher, Additional Secretary, Union Ministry of Commerce & Industry
Ms Anita Agnihotri, Additional Secretary, Union Ministry of Commerce & Industry
Shri Mukesh Bhatnagar, Additional DGFT, Union Ministry of Commerce & Industry
Dr. Satish B. Agnihotri Director General of Shipping & Ex. Officio Additional Secretary, Govt. of India
Ms Meera Mehrishi, Additional Secretary, HSMD, Union Minister of Environment & Forests
Shri Madhusudan Prasad, Additional Secretary, Union Ministry of Commerce & Industry Shri Rajeev Kher, Additional Secretary, Union Ministry of Commerce & Industry
Ms Anita Agnihotri, Additional Secretary, Union Ministry of Commerce & Industry
Shri Mukesh Bhatnagar, Additional DGFT, Union Ministry of Commerce & Industry
Dr. Satish B. Agnihotri Director General of Shipping & Ex. Officio Additional Secretary, Govt. of India
Shri J P Shukla, Joint Secretary, Union Ministry of
Shipping
Shri A C Buck, Director General of Central Excise Intelligence (DGCEI), Union Ministry of Finance
Shri S.S. Bajaj, Chairman, Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, Mumbai
Ms Aditi Das Rout, Director, Union Ministry of Commerce & Industry
Dr. Manoranjan Hota, Director, HSMD, Union Minister of Environment & Forests
Shri Sanjay Parikh, Lawyer, Supreme Court
Member Secretary, Gujarat Pollution Control Board (GPCB)
Chairman, GPCB
Chairman, Gujarat Maritime Board
Shri S K Sharma, Atomic Energy Regulatory Board
Shri L S Singh, Union Ministry of Steel
ACB, Gandhinagar, CBI
Office of Commissioner, Customs, Ahmedabad
Shri C A Joseph, Under Secretary, MF Desk, Union Ministry of Steel
Shri V. P. Patel, Collector, Bhavnagar District
Shri Maninder Singh Pawar, Superintendent of Police, Bhavnagar District
Shri A C Buck, Director General of Central Excise Intelligence (DGCEI), Union Ministry of Finance
Shri S.S. Bajaj, Chairman, Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, Mumbai
Ms Aditi Das Rout, Director, Union Ministry of Commerce & Industry
Dr. Manoranjan Hota, Director, HSMD, Union Minister of Environment & Forests
Shri Sanjay Parikh, Lawyer, Supreme Court
Member Secretary, Gujarat Pollution Control Board (GPCB)
Chairman, GPCB
Chairman, Gujarat Maritime Board
Shri S K Sharma, Atomic Energy Regulatory Board
Shri L S Singh, Union Ministry of Steel
ACB, Gandhinagar, CBI
Office of Commissioner, Customs, Ahmedabad
Shri C A Joseph, Under Secretary, MF Desk, Union Ministry of Steel
Shri V. P. Patel, Collector, Bhavnagar District
Shri Maninder Singh Pawar, Superintendent of Police, Bhavnagar District
Post a Comment