April 2013 | ToxicsWatch, Journal of Earth, Science, Economy and Justice

8:37 PM

Evidence shows EU Emissions Trading Scheme is Fraudsters’ Paradise, cannot be reformed

Written By Krishna on Monday, April 15, 2013 | 8:37 PM

Press Statement

Evidence shows EU Emissions Trading Scheme is Fraudsters’ Paradise, cannot be reformed

Emissions Trading is part of the climate problem, not solution, says a new report

Ahead of the European Parliament’s vote today on the European Commission’s proposal to ‘reform’ the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) and vindicating the long held view that carbon trade is not and cannot the part of solution as it is part of the problem in responding to market failure led climate crisis, a new 16 page attached report has revealed that problems with EU ETS are inherent, systemic and unresolvable.

ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA), New Delhi endorses the recommendation of the report about this failed system of emissions trading which is further delaying real action for reducing emissions in Europe in particular and globally in general.

The report “EU ETS myth busting: why it can’t be reformed and shouldn’t be replicated” has debunked the claims made in defence of the EU ETS. The list of the organisation who have co-published the report is given below.

It has underlined that decrease in emissions from 2008 and 2010 in Europe was related to the economic crisis and not to emissions trading. There has been no real shift in the way energy is produced or used by the industries in Europe.

It denounces the idea that emissions trading is an or can be an incentive to promote investment in cleaner energy solutions.

The report states that “The EU ETS is a cumbersome, unresponsivemechanism which has failed to achieve its own objectives”. It adds, “The EU ETS is a Fraudsters’ Paradise, fostering tax

evasion, fraud, and other criminal activities.”

Now the time has come for the Euorpean Parlaiment and the EU to acknowledge that the emissiongs trading as a solution has not worked.

European Parliament’s vote today on the European Commission’s proposal to ‘reform’ the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) should keep in mind how such schemes are being used in Indian national capital to bulldoze heavily pollution Chinese technology based waste incinerator technologies in the residential and ecologically sensitive areas.

It is noteworthy that one of the European MPs from Belgium was deeply concerned about the New Delhi's waste based power plant which is registered with Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) Executive Board. This MP was in touch with TWA for several months to understand the bitter opposition to it.

TWA urges European parliamentarians to adopt its original position against carbon trade which it chose to dilute under US influence for adoption o Kyoto Protocol and work for real solutions and genuinely green technologies.

For more information contact:
- Hannah Mowat (FERN): +32 48 50 25 432
- Lyda Fernanda (TNI): +31 685086340
- Belén Balanyá (CEO): +31 633090386
-Gopal Krishna, ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA), Mb: 9818089660,

E-mail: gopalkrishna1715@gmail.com Web: www.toxicswatch.org

[i]Alianca Redes de Cooperacao Comunitaria Sem Fronteiros Asociacion Ambiente y Sociedad, (Colombia), All India Forum of Forest Movements -AIFFM (India), ANPED, ATALC – Amigos de la Tierra América Latina y Caribe, Both ENDS (Netherlands), Carbon Trade Watch, CENSAT Agua Viva – Amigos de la Tierra Colombia, Centre for Civil Society (South Africa), COECOCEIBA – Amigos de la Tierra Costa Rica, Corner House, Corporate Europe Observatory, CounterBalance, Earth Peoples, Ecologistas en Acción (Spain), FERN, Food and Water Watch Europe, Friends of Siberian Forests (Russia), FASE, Friends of the Earth Brazil, Friends of the Earth Canada, Global Forest Coalition, Green Cross Society, Indian Social Action Forum (India), JA!Justica Ambiental – Friends of the Earth Mozambique, Movimento Mulheres pela P@Z!, NESPON (India), New York Climate Action Group, Observatori del Deute en la Globalitzacio (Catalunya), Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement, PIDHDD, Re:Common, REDES – Friends of the Earth Uruguay, SDE, School of Democratic Economics, Taller Ecologista, Timberwatch (South Africa), TNI, UKWIN, WISE, Woodland League, World Development Movement

7:15 PM

ship breaking with hazardous waste at Alang, crime against humanity

It is noteworthy that Altamas Kabir, Chief Justice of India has said that ship breaking with hazardous waste at Alang is environment polluting activity and is viewed as a crime against humanity, and against people living here on February 17, 2013.

Earlier, concluding the 15 page judgment of July 30, 2012 in the matter of end of life US ship Exxon Valdez filed by ToxicsWatch Alliance, Justice Altamas Kabir headed bench of Supreme Court directed that "...in all future cases of a similar nature, the concerned authorities shall strictly comply with the norms laid down in the Basel Convention or any other subsequent provisions that may be adopted by the Central Government in aid of a clean and pollution free maritime environment, before permitting entry of any vessel suspected to be carrying toxic and hazardous material into Indian territorial waters."

6:09 AM

Abandon asbestos, ToxicsWatch Alliance asks Nitish

Abandon asbestos, ToxicsWatch Alliance asks Nitish

TWA demands compensation fund for victims of past exposure

Operation in Goraul factory has only been suspended

Staff Reporter, The Hindu

Patna: ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA), which has been waging a long battle against the hazardous effects of asbestos on workers in factories and villages, on Friday appealed to Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar to stop asbestos factories.

“We submit that the Bihar government must be made to adopt a policy of zero tolerance against asbestos-based industrial projects. All the locations where asbestos plants are proposed are simmering with discontent. These hazardous projects must be abandoned,” the non-governmental organisation said in its letter.

It demanded that the government set up a fund “to provide compensation to the asbestos victims of past exposure by making asbestos-based companies liable for knowingly exposing workers, consumers and citizens to asbestos fibres.”

The government should create a database of workers in such factories to “pursue the case of legal and medical remedy for these workers who are bound to suffer from asbestos-related incurable diseases.”

Facing opposition to asbestos-based plants, the government shut the facility in Marwan, Muzaffarpur, but operation in the factory at Goraul, Vaishali, has only been suspended, the letter points out.

The TWA, in its letter, also alleged that Deputy Chief Minister Sushil Kumar Modi, who is in charge of Environment and Forests, “misinformed the State Assembly about the Supreme Court’s order on asbestos and adverse health impact studies.” Mr. Modi had said using asbestos products posed no health hazard.

The court, in its January 21, 2011 order, referred to its earlier judgment to observe that diseases occurred from exposure to toxic agents, “regardless of the country, type of industry, job title, job assignment or location of exposure. The diseases will follow the trail of exposure and extend the chain of the carcinogenic risk beyond the work place.”

Citing international examples, the letter said a total shutdown of asbestos mines took place in Canada by 2011.

5:04 AM

Opposition to transfer of shipbreaking work from Ministry of Steel to Ministry of Shipping reiterated

Press Release

Opposition to transfer of shipbreaking work from Ministry of Steel to Ministry of Shipping reiterated

Asbestos waste (dust & fibers), both loose asbestos and embedded asbestos is banned as per Rules under Environment Protection Act, 1986

New Delhi April 15, 2013: Besides sending the letter below, ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA) spoke to concerned officials in the Union Ministry of Steel today and expressed its strong objection and concern about the transfer of shipbreaking work from Ministry of Steel to Ministry of Shipping.

TWA expressed its disagreement with Union Environment Ministry's discredited argument about 'virgin' loose asbestos waste in the matter of shipbreaking. As per Hazardous Wastes (Management,Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008 under Environment Protection Act, 1986, trade in asbestos waste (dust & fibers) is totally prohibited.

If embedded asbestos waste is allowed as is envisaged in the proposed Shipbreaking Code 2013, it will be in violation of the Rules. The very fact that Ministry of Environment & Forests is the Focal Point of Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal and in that role deal with the issue of end-of-life ships demonstrates that end-of-life ship is a hazardous waste. Even Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) has given affidavits to this effect in the Supreme Court.

Proposal for allocation of decision making about ship breaking/recycling to Union Ministry of Shipping under Shipbreaking Code 2013 is deeply flawed. This 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.If this aspect persists in the final Code, TWA will inform the Court about the violation of its orders.

In a letter sent to E K Bharat Bhushan, Chairman, Inter-Ministerial Committee (IMC) on Shipbreaking, Union Ministry of Steel, ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA) has expressed its 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”. The letter is attached.

The letter submits 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.

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.

It may be noted that 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.

TWA wants 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”.

TWA strongly apprehends 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.

TWA strongly objects 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.

It strongly objects 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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, TWA has requested IMC 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.

This development is surprising because after E K Bharbhushan took over as the Chairman of IMC, the minutes of the IMC meetings reveal sensitivity towards the most vulnerable migrant workers involved in ship breaking with regard to their housing and hospital. TWA met the Chairman on March 28, 2013 to apprise IMC about these concerns.

For Details: Gopal Krishna, Convener, ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA), Mb: 9818089660, E-mail:krishna1715@gmail.com, Web: http://www.toxicswatch.com

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Gopal Krishna
Date: Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 6:42 PM
Subject: Fwd: Statement of concern on flawed proposal for allocation of shipbreaking work to Ministry of Shipping & Hong Kong Convention
To: toxicswatchalliance TWA

ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA)

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 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.

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.

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

Cc
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 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

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

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

9:29 PM

Why asbestos based factories should be stopped in Bihar

Written By Krishna on Saturday, April 13, 2013 | 9:29 PM

ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA)

Shri Nitish Kumar

Hon’ble Chief Minister

Government of Bihar

Patna

Date: April 12, 2013

Subject- Why asbestos based factories should be stopped in Bihar

Dear Shri Nitish Kumarji,

We wish to place on record our appreciation for respecting the wishes of villagers of Marwan, Muzaffarpur and Goraul, Vaishali who are opposed to hazardous asbestos based plants. The former has been wound up and the latter has been suspended temporarily. We have learnt that the process of winding up the latter is also underway.

We submit that such sensitivity towards public health which is a State subject under the Constitution is a lesson for the Union Ministry of Environment & Forests which pretends ignorance about its own Vision Statement on Environment and Health on its website and continues to grant environmental clearance to such hazardous asbestos based factories which are banned in over 50 countries. The Vision Statement reads: "Alternatives to asbestos may be used to the extent possible and use of asbestos may be phased out." The central ministry’s document says so at page no. 12. It is available athttp://moef.nic.in/divisions/cpoll/envhealth/visenvhealth.pdf

We submit that the central government has technically banned mining of asbestos and trade in asbestos waste (dust & fibers). By the letter from Union Ministry of Steel, Mines & Coal, Government of India with reference no. 7/23/84-AM-III/AM-VI dated 09.07.1986, there is a stay on grant of new mining lease for asbestos mineral and renewal of the leases. As a result at present no permission is being given for new mining lease of asbestos mineral and no lease is being renewed. At present no lease of asbestos mineral is approved/or in force. The Hazardous Waste (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2010 has retained the ban on import/export of waste asbestos (dust & fibers).

We submit that Union Ministry of Chemical Fertilizers took the right step at the 5^th meeting of the Conference of Parties of the UN’sRotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent (PIC) Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade that was held on 20-24 June, 2011 at Geneva by endorsing the inclusion of chrysotile asbestos (white asbestos) in the list of hazardous chemicals. The next meeting of Rotterdam Convention will commence on April 28, 2013 wherein chrysotile asbestos is all set to be included in the PIC list. The Contact groups under the separate ordinary meeting of the Rotterdam Convention could start on May 7, 2013 and would be encouraged to complete their work, if possible, by close of business on May 8, 2013 and not later than by close of business on May 9, 2013. The Chrysotile asbestos is all set to be listed in the PIC list. The Union Ministry of Chemicals disassociated India from Canada and other asbestos producing countries in order to get white asbestos listed in the UN list of hazardous materials on June 21, 2011.

We submit that in a significant development, asbestos industry in Canada has been buried with the announcement in last week's Canada's federal budget. In the Canadian budget papers at page 241, headline reads: "Supporting the Economic Transition of Communities Economically Linked to the Chrysotile Asbestos Industry" in the Chapter 3.5 titled: Supporting Families and Communities. By 2010 Canada hardly any customers, its biggest customer is India with $41 million. India being the biggest customer of Canadian asbestos, will have to take steps to look for alternatives of asbestos and have to take steps to support workers, families and communities who have been adversely impacted by asbestos exposure without any legal or medical remedy.

The value of Canada’s raw asbestos exports has dropped 94 per cent between 1990 and 2011. Exports alone were worth $645-million in 1990 and fell to $41-million in 2011. The government’s promised $50-million over seven years represents about 8 per cent of what asbestos exports were in 1990. The relevant text of the Canadian Budget Plan is available at http://www.budget.gc.ca/2013/doc/plan/chap3-5-eng.html

Canada was one of the key suppliers of chrysotile asbestos which opposed its inclusion in the PIC list of hazardous substances. The purpose of the prior informed consent (PIC) procedure is to allow countries to make their own informed decisions on future imports of hazardous substances. The chemicals listed in Annex III of the Convention include pesticides and industrial chemicals that have been banned or severely restricted for health or environmental reasons by two or more Parties and which the Conference of the Parties has decided to subject to the PIC procedure.

We submit that Canada barely uses asbestos in its own country for several years. It has been spending millions to remove asbestos from the Parliament Buildings. Despite knowing the cancer causing nature of asbestos, Canada continues to ship some 150,000 tonnes of it to countries like India each year. Bihar Government can initiate the process of making the State asbestos free by decontaminating State’s legislature buildings of asbestos fibers.

We submit that in November 2011, the last of the asbestos mines in Canada stopped operating. After that the Parti Québécois, the current ruling party won the election in Quebec and Premier Pauline Marois pledged to pull the plug on a proposal by Liberal Premier Jean Charest to loan the asbestos industry $58 million. This guides the way for complete ban asbestos in all its forms.

This is to inform you that Bihar Environment Minister, Shri Sushil Modi was briefed wrongly by his officials as a result he has misinformed the State Assembly about Supreme Court’s order on asbestos and adverse health impact studies. The attached WHO document reveals how ILO and WHO has recommended elimination of future use of asbestos of all forms including white chrysotile asbestos.

We submit that the Supreme Court orders of 1995 and 2011 categorically refer to studies that have established proven relation between asbestos exposure and incurable lung cancer.

We submit that even World Bank and Asian Development Bank documents underline the carcinogenic risks of asbestos fibers besides WHO and ILO.

In his reply in the State Assembly, Shri Sushil Kumar Modi, Bihar Minister of Environment & Forests has been misled into saying “Hon’ble Supreme Court while dismissing the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 260/2004 filed to get asbestos and products made from it, held that there is no available credible study on the basis of which direct relationship of cancer disease with use of asbestos can be proved.”This reply in Hindi is attached along with its English translation.

Contrary to what the Bihar Environment Minister replied in the State Assembly, Supreme Court in its judgment in the above mentioned case, dated January 21, 2011at paragraph 14 reads as under:

“....In the earlier judgment of this Court in the case of Consumer Education and Research Centre (supra), hazards arising out of primary use of asbestos were primarily dealt with, but certainly secondary exposure also needs to be examined by the Court. In that judgment, the Court had noticed that it would, thus, be clear that diseases occurred wherever the exposure to the toxic or carcinogenic agent occurs, regardless of the country, type of industry, job title, job assignment or location of exposure. The diseases will follow the trail of the exposure and extend the chain of the carcinogenic risk beyond the work place. In that judgment, the Court had also directed that a review by the Union and the States shall be made after every ten years and also as and when the ILO gives directions in this behalf consistent with its recommendations or conventions. Admittedly, 15 years has expired since the issuance of the directions by this Court. The ILO also made certain specific directions vide its resolution of 2006 adopted in the 95th session of the International Labour Conference. It introduced a ban on all mining, manufacture, recycling and use of all forms of asbestos. As already noticed, serious doubts have been raised as to whether `controlled use' can be effectively implemented even with regard to secondary exposure. These are circumstances which fully require the concerned quarters/authorities in the Government of India as well as the State Governments to examine/review the matter in accordance with law, objectively, to achieve the greater health care of the poor strata of the country who are directly or indirectly engaged in mining or manufacturing activities of asbestos and/or allied products.”

We submit that the Supreme Court in its judgment dated January 21, 2011 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.260 of 2004 referred to its directions of January 27, 1995 in the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 206 of 1986 that are required to be strictly adhered to including fresh International Labour Organisation (ILO) resolution on Asbestos dated June 14, 2006. The 1995 judgement quoted in 2011 order is attached.

It is clear that the Supreme Court has taken note of the resolution of WHO and ILO which seek elimination of all forms of asbestos.

Bihar Environment Minister was asked: Is it true that due to pollution happening due to asbestos factories, diseases like Mesothelioma, Asbestosis, lung cancer occur which is hazardous to health?

He replied, “So far there has been no study in the country to establish this fact in a credible manner.”

We submit that Bihar Environment Minister should note that as Union Health Minister, Sushma Swaraj has informed the Parliament on August 13, 2003, “…the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) is of the view that long term exposure to any type of asbestos can lead to development of asbestosis, lung cancer and Mesothelioma” and referred to the need for complying with “ILO directions” as per Supreme Court order.

We submit that Bihar Environment Minister should note that Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) reports of the asbestos companies also categorically admit to the relationship between exposure to asbestos and diseases like mesothelioma, asbestosis and lung cancer.

We submit that Union Minister of Health and Family Welfare, Dr. C.P. Thakur informed the Parliament on August 22, 2001 that “Some of the countries in the world like France, U.K., Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Netherland, Finland, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Austria, Poland and Saudi Arabia have banned the use of Asbestos”.

We submit that on December 24, 2012, Shri Awadesh Narain Singh, Chairman, Bihar Legislative Council expressed his strong opposition to such hazardous plants and expressed grief at such plants being set in Bihar at A N Sinha Institute of Social Studies in his inaugural address to a Conference on Environmental and Occupational Health co-organised by ToxicsWatch Alliance. He expressed unhappiness at the fact that such a plant has been set up next to educational institution in Giddha, Koilwar, Bhojpur. His valuable speech is available on www.youtube.com.

We submit that Bihar Environment Minister, a member of Bihar Legislative Council (BLC) appears ignorant about the views of Chairman, BLC, Dr Thakur and Smt Sushma Swaraj regarding asbestos hazards.

We submit that the government agencies like Directorate General, Factory Advice Service and Labour Institutes (DGFASLI) took note of Prevalence of Asbestosis and Related Disorders in a Asbestos Fiber Processing Unit in West Bengal as early as in 1996. Reference: Prevalence of Asbestosis and Related Disorders in a Asbestos Fiber Processing Unit in West Bengal. http://www.dgfasli.nic.in/newsletter/jan_march_96.pdf

It must be noted that Secretary (Labour), Bihar was a member of a 11 member Working Group of a Planning Commission to prepare the Xth Five Year Plan on Occupational Safety and Health at the workplace under the Chairmanship of Vinod Vaish, Secretary, Ministry of Labour, Government of India vide their order no. M-13015/9/2000-LEM/LP dated 27.04.2001. In its 159 page report dated September 2001, the Working Group noted that “The workers are also exposed to a host of hazardous substances, which have a potential to cause serious occupational diseases such as asbestosis…” It has recorded that various studies conducted by the Central Labour Institute have revealed substantial prevalence of occupational health disorders amongst the workers such as Asbestosis. The prevalence rate for Asbestosis was reported to be 7.25%. It has been acknowledged that “At the same time the number of occupational diseases reported is very meager…This makes it evident that early identification of occupational diseases is required. It has recommended that “To meet these requirements, measures are needed for diagnostic facilities and appropriate training in the field of occupational health. Occupational health hazards and diseases to the workmen employed in asbestos industries are of great concern to the industries, Govt. and the public. The Honorable Supreme Court of India in its judgement dated 27th January, 1995 relating to the Public Interest Litigation No.206 of 1986 had given several directions concerning the protective measures to be taken against the hazards of exposure to asbestos at workplaces such as mining and manufacturing activities. In the light of Supreme Court directives, it is proposed to launch a comprehensive programme for the protection of the health of the workers engaged in hazardous industries with adequate mechanisms for monitoring of work environment and diagnosis and control of disease.”

We submit that Union Ministry of Labour has revealed that that the “Government of India is considering the ban on use of chrysotile asbestos in India to protect the workers and the general population against primary and secondary exposure to Chrysotile form of Asbestos" at page no. 28 of its concept paper at the two-day 5th India-EU Joint Seminar on “Occupational Safety and Health” during 19-20 September, 2011.

It is noteworthy that Dow Chemicals Company has set aside $2.2 billion in compensation fund to address future asbestos-related liabilities arising out of acquisition of Union Carbide Corporation and its Indian investments in 1999. Many manufacturers of asbestos-containing products have gone bankrupt in USA as a result of asbestos litigation.

We submit that even World Bank has a policy against asbestos since 1991. "The Bank increasingly prefers to avoid financing asbestos use...Thus, at any mention of asbestos in Bank-assisted projects, the Task Manager needs to exercise special care." (World Bank’s Environmental Assessment Sourcebook, Vol. 3, World Bank Technical Paper #154) The guideline says: “The onus is on proponents to show the unavailability of alternatives.”

We submit that a 229 page report of Asian Development Bank (ADB) titled “India: Preparing the Bihar Urban Development Project—Environmental Impact Assessment for Bhagalpur Water Supply”, Project Number: 7106 prepared for Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Bihar in June 2011 at page no. 94 deals with Asbestos Cement (AC) Pipes. It reads: “An additional, particularly acute health risk presented by this subproject derives from the fact that, the existing water supply system may comprises partially AC pipes, so there is a risk of contact with carcinogenic material if these pipes are uncovered in the course of the work.”

Unmindful such a background the status of asbestos based factories in Bihar is as under:

1) Kolkata based UAL Industries Ltd for Establishment of 2, 33, 000 MT per year capacity Asbestos Cement Sheet and Corrugated Sheets Plant in two phases at Goraul, Vaishali in the name of UAL-Bihar. This has been suspended temporarily. The Hon’ble Chief Minister met a delegation on February 13, 2013 in Patna at his residence and has assured them that he is also opposed to such hazardous plants.

2) Chennai based Ramco Industries Ltd has two plants of 1,20,000 MT/Annum Capacity of Asbestos Cement Sheet Plant and 2 Lakh MT/Annum Capacity of Cement Grinding Plant at Industrial Area, Bihiya, Bhojpur. It faces consistent opposition from the residents of Bihya. They have given memorandum to the District Magistrate against it. The aggrieved persons have complained to the Chairperson, Bihar State Pollution Control Board as well.

3) Chennai based Nibhi Industries Pvt. Ltd for establishment of the One Lakh MT Capacity Asbestos Fiber Cement Corrugated Sheet, Flat Sheet and Accessories and Light Weight Fly Ash Block Plant at Industrial Growth Centre, Giddha, Koilwar, Bhojpur. This has been taken on lease by Utkal Asbestos Limited (UAL), the company whose proposal for the plant has been stopped by the villagers in Vaishali. Paryavaran Swathya Surkasha Samiti, Koilwar has been protesting against this hazardous plant. It has given memorandum to the District Magistrate against it.

4) Andhra Pradesh based Hyderabad Industries Ltd for establishment of 2,50,000 MT per year capacity Asbestos Cement Sheeting Plant in two Phases at Kumarbagh Industrial Area, West Champaran. This plant too faces protest. There is a case against this proposed plant in the lower court.

5) Kolkata based Balmukund Cement & Roofings Ltd for establishment of 1.5 Lakh MT capacity production unit of Asbestos Fiber Cement Sheet (Corrugated/Flat) and Accessories at Chainpur-Bishunpur, Marwan, Muzaffarpur. This has been stopped following bitter opposition by villagers for 2 years. Bihar State Human Rights Commission announced the fact that the plant has been wound up.

6) Rajasthan based A Infrastructure Ltd for establishment of 1, 25, 000 MT per year capacity Asbestos Cement (A.C.) Sheet and 1,00,000 MT per year capacity A.C. Pressure Pipe at Pandaul Industrial Area, Madhubani is proposed.

We submit that Bihar Government must be made to adopt a policy of zero tolerance against asbestos based industrial projects. All the locations where asbestos plants are proposed are simmering with discontent. These hazardous projects must be abandoned.

We demand that Government of Bihar should also set up a compensation fund to provide compensation to the asbestos victims of past exposure by making asbestos based companies liable for knowingly exposing workers, consumers and citizens to asbestos fibers.

We wish to inform you that Bihari migrant workers who are involved in the shipbreaking industrial on Alang beach, Bhavnagar, Gujarat are routinely exposed to asbestos fibers. You will be setting a very healthy precedent if you can create a database of these workers so that Government of Bihar can pursue the case of legal and medical remedy for these workers who are bound to suffer from asbestos related incurable diseases.

We submit that the State Government can express its sensitivity towards migrant workers who work in hazardous industries in other States by creating a database of such workers so that when they are found to be suffering from occupational diseases, the Government can demand from the concerned companies and the relevant States.

In view of the above, it is quite clear that there is a compelling logic for Bihar’s Ministry of Environment & Forests to revise its views which are bringing disrepute to State especially among world’s scientific and medical community.

We will be happy to share more relevant document and information in this regard.

Warm Regards

Gopal Krishna
Convener
ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA)
Phone: +91-11-2651781, Fax: +91-11-26517814
Mb:09818089660
E-mail: gopalkrishna1715@gmail.com
Web: www.toxicswatch.org

ToxicsWatch, Journal of Earth, Science, Economy and Justice

Featured Articles

Evidence shows EU Emissions Trading Scheme is Fraudsters’ Paradise, cannot be reformed

Written By Krishna on Monday, April 15, 2013 | 8:37 PM

ship breaking with hazardous waste at Alang, crime against humanity

Abandon asbestos, ToxicsWatch Alliance asks Nitish

Opposition to transfer of shipbreaking work from Ministry of Steel to Ministry of Shipping reiterated

Why asbestos based factories should be stopped in Bihar

Written By Krishna on Saturday, April 13, 2013 | 9:29 PM

Labels

Links

About Us

Contact

Links