Parrots of
Environment Ministry repeated whatever industry said at UN Meet in Geneva
Government should order a probe to ascertain how the ministry was overwhelmed by asbestos industry
Advisory Committee of Union Ministry of Labour yet to submit its report on banning asbestos
Government should order a probe to ascertain how the ministry was overwhelmed by asbestos industry
Advisory Committee of Union Ministry of Labour yet to submit its report on banning asbestos
New Delhi, May 15, 2013: In a letter to Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh and Chairperson
of National Advisory Council, Mrs Sonia Gandhi, ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA) has
exposed how Indian delegation’s position at the sixth meeting on UN's Rotterdam
Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous
Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade which concluded on May 10, 2013
with regard to asbestos is contrary to Indian laws in practice. The letter
dated May 13, 2013 is attached.
Indian delegation feigned ignorance
about the fact that asbestos is listed as a hazardous substance under Part II of Schedule-I of the Manufacture,
Storage and import of Hazardous Chemical Rules, 1989 under the Environment
(Protection) Act, 1986 provides the List
of Hazardous and Toxic Chemicals. This list has 429 chemicals. Asbestos is at
the serial no. 28 in the list. This Rule and the list is available on the
website of Union Ministry of Environment & Forests.
Indian delegation comprised of
Shri Ajay Tyagi, Joint Secretary Ministry of Environment and Forests, Ms.
Chhanda Chowdhury, Director, Hazardous Substances Management Division, Ministry
of Environment and Forests, Mr. Ram Niwas Jindal, Additional Director,
Hazardous Substances Management Division, Ministry of Environment and Forests
and Mr. Vinod Babu Bommathula, Scientist-D & In-Charge, Central Pollution
Control Board, Ministry of Environment besides asbestos industry lobbyists like
Mr. Abhaya Shankar, Chairman, Asbestos Cement Products Manufacturers’
Association and Vivek Chandra Rao Sripalle, Director, Safety Health and Environment,
Asbestos Cement Products Manufacturers’ Association. The industry’s influence
on the delegation’s stance is quite manifest. It also merits attention as to
whether the industry representatives went to this UN conference on their own
expense or government sponsored their visit. Asbestos Cement Products
Manufacturers’ Association (ACPMA) which accompanied the delegation is facing a
probe by Competition Commission of India (CCI) after a reference from the
Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO). CCI has said in its quarterly
newsletter that “The market of asbestos cement sheets consists of 20 big firms
and 68 manufacturing units, of which top six players hold 87 per cent of the
market share”. The newsletter is available here: http://www.cci.gov.in/
Had ACPMA not overwhelmed the
Indian delegation, the Indian position would have been in keeping with its Inventory of Hazardous Chemicals Import in
India that lists ‘asbestos’ at serial no. 26 as one of the 180 hazardous
chemicals in international trade which is imported in India. This inventory was
prepared by Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), under Union Ministry of
Environment & Forests, Govt. of India prepared in September, 2008 with a
foreword September 24, 2008 by Shri J. M. Mauskar, the then Chairman, CPCB and
Additional Secretary, Union Ministry of Environment & Forests This was done
pursue of Government of India’s “Manufacture, Storage, and Import of Hazardous
Chemicals (MSIHC) Rules, 1989” under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
According to these Rules, any person responsible for importing hazardous
chemicals in India is to provide the data of import to the concerned authorities,
as identified in Column 2 of Schedule 5 to the Rules. The CPCB “has been
identified as one of such Authorities. In order to study the inventory of
Hazardous Chemicals being imported by various categories of industrial units in
India, the data provided by these industrial units to the Central Pollution
Control Board (CPCB) have been compiled.” It is scandalous as to why did the
Indian delegation took a position inconsistent with the Manufacture, Storage,
and Import of Hazardous Chemicals (MSIHC) Rules, 1989. The CPCB’s inventory is
attached.
Even under Factories Act, 1948, the List of 29 industries involving
hazardous processes is given under Section 2 (cb), Schedule First, asbestos is
mentioned at serial no. 24. The Act
defines "hazardous process" as “any process or activity in relation
to an industry specified in the First Schedule where, unless special care is
taken, raw materials used therein or the intermediate or finished products,
bye-products, wastes or effluents thereof would--(i) cause material impairment
to the health of the persons engaged in or connected therewith, or (ii) result
in the pollution of the general environment”.
This leaves no doubt that asbestos is a hazardous substance. The Act is
available at:
Indian delegation was joined by supporters
of asbestos industry and made the government representatives take a position against
human health and the environment and to put profit of the asbestos industry
before gnawing public health concerns.
Earlier, on June 22, 2011 Indian
delegation led by Ms. Mira Mehrishi, Additional Secretary, had supported the
listing of Chrysotile asbestos as a hazardous chemical substance at the fifth
meeting on Rotterdam Convention amidst standing ovation. TWA had taken the
opportunity of congratulating the government but this about turn is a sad let
down.
It is reliably learnt that officials
and scientists who go to such UN meetings feel humiliated when the industry
representatives give them directions instead of the senior government officials
or ministers. The UN meet on hazardous chemicals creates a rationale for
insulating government officials from undue and motivated industry influence
else they will be obliged to act like parrots. The Cabinet Committee on
Economic Affairs (CCEA) must factor in the far reaching implications for public
health before defending the indefensible hazardous asbestos industry. The day
is not far when members of CCEA too will be held liable for their acts of
omission and commission as is happening in more than 50 countries that have
banned all kinds of asbestos.
In keeping with Indian laws when the UN’s Chemical Review
Committee of Rotterdam Convention recommended listing of white chrysotile
asbestos as hazardous substance it is incomprehensible as why Indian delegation
opposed its inclusion in the UN list. The only explanation appears to be the fact
that the Indian government delegation did not have a position independent of
the asbestos industry’s position which has covered up and denied the scientific
evidence that all asbestos can cause disease and death.
There is a case going on against the white asbestos in the
National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), New Delhi wherein the applicant has
demanded inclusion of white asbestos in the UN list. On behalf of the Union Ministry
of Environment & Forests, Shri R B Lal, Deputy Director has submitted its reply
to the NHRC. The reply did not disclose that the delegation of Government of
India led by Ms. Mira Mehrishi, Additional Secretary had announced its
agreement to the inclusion of chrysotile asbestos in the list of hazardous
chemicals paving the way for its “phase out” as envisioned in Union Environment
Ministry’s Vision Statement amidst standing ovation. This reply to NHRC chose
to maintain deafening silence about its own Vision Statement that says,
“Alternatives to asbestos may be used to the extent possible and use ofasbestos may be phased out”.
Meanwhile, an Advisory Committee of Union Ministry of
Labour has been set up to implement Hon’ble Supreme Court order issued 15 years ago on
January 27, 1995 and repeated on January 23, 2012. Although more than 1 year
and four months have passed but the Advisory Committee headed by Shri A C
Pandey, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Labour is yet to submit its report to incorporate
specific directions of the Court with regard to fresh ILO’s Resolution of June
14, 2006 introducing a ban on all mining, manufacture, recycling and use of all
forms of asbestos.
Early industry-funded studies showed a causal relationship
between asbestos exposure and cancer. Had this been made known to the public it
could have prevented countless deaths but the asbestos industry made the
conscious decision to protect their profits instead and choose to keep this
information hidden from the public. India’s asbestos industry is following the same
path.
As a consequence, although millions of Indian lives are being
lost and millions are being exposed to the killer fibers of white chrysotile
asbestos, no government agency or company is being held liable due to political
patronage.
While on a visit to New Delhi, Dr Alec Farquhar, the
then Managing Director, Occupational Health Clinics for Ontario Workers, Canada
said, “We now have around 500 asbestos cancer cases every year in Ontario from
a population of 13 million. If you (India) continue on your current path, you
will multiply our death count by 100 times. That would be 50, 000 Indian
workers dying every year from asbestos. In Ontario, we learned that safe use of
asbestos is impossible. I urge you from the bottom of my heart, please do not
make the same mistake as we made in Canada. Stop using asbestos and use a safe
alternative.”
It is clear that lack of documentation and lack of environmental
and occupational health infrastructure does not mean lack of victims of
asbestos related diseases.
For
Details: Gopal Krishna, ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA), Mb: 9818089660, E-mail:
gopalkrishna1715@gmail.com, Web:
www.toxicswatch.org
Post a Comment