Hiroshima Peace Declaration on 81st anniversary of atomic bombing [Full
Text]
-
The following is the full text of the Peace Declaration read on Aug. 6 by
Hiroshima Mayor Kazumi Matsui at a ceremony to mark 81 years since the 1945
ato...
Latest Post
Showing posts with label Basel Convention. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Basel Convention. Show all posts
Rajya Sabha Chairman requested to refer Recycling of Ships Bill, 2019 to Parliamentary Standing Committee on Science & Technology, Environment, Forests & Climate Change
Written By mediavigil on Thursday, December 05, 2019 | 9:20 PM
To
Shri M. Venkaiah Naidu
Hon’ble Chairman
Rajya Sabha
Parliament of India
New Delhi
Date: 05/12/2019
Subject-Request
for referring The Recycling Of Ships Bill, 2019 to Parliamentary
Standing Committee on Science and Technology, Environment, Forests and Climate
Change to safeguard country’s maritime environment from harmful and hazardous
wastes and materials
Sir,
With reference to the passage of
18 page long The Recycling Of Ships Bill, 2019 from the Lok Sabha on
December 3, 2019, I wish to earnestly request you to refer this Bill to the
Parliamentary Standing Committee on Science & Technology, Environment,
Forests & Climate Change to safeguard country’s maritime environment from
hazardous wastes and materials. I have undertaken research on the subject in
question for over a decade and the related aspects of hazardous wastes and
materials since 2000 and have been an invitee to the UN bodies, Parliamentary
Committees and Hon’ble Supreme Court’s committees for submissions on this
subject. On behalf of ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA), I have been an applicant in
the Hon’ble Court in an effort to stop India from becoming a dumping of foreign
toxic wastes and end-of-life ships. It is noteworthy that India does not have
an exhaustive inventory of hazardous wastes and materials with their
environmental health impacts.
Having been in conversation with
the inter-ministerial Ship Breaking Scrap Committee since July 22, 2014 seeking
compliance with the Shipbreaking Code, 2013, Basel Convention, the only
international/UN law on ship breaking and having engaged with the Inter-Ministerial
Committee on Shipbreaking, Ministry of Steel in the past, I submit that the
subject of ship-breaking industry was under the Steel Ministry from 1983 to
July 2014 before it was brought under the supervision of the Ministry of
Shipping. The fact remains ship breaking/recycling is a secondary steel
production activity, an activity which is beyond the competence of
Ministry of Shipping.
This Bill
refers to the International Maritime Organisation (IMO)’s Hong Kong
International Convention for the Safe and Environmentally Sound Recycling of
Ships, 2009 which was framed by the Marine Environment Protection Committee
(MEPC) and the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of
Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal, 1989. The Ban Amendment which comes into
force today (5 December, 2019) is related to the latter. India is a party to
the Basel Convention but not to the latter.
I wish to
draw your attention towards enactment of The Bangladesh Ship Recycling Act 2018
which has been legislated by Jatiya Sangsad on 24 January, 2018
admittedly at the behest of foreign lobbies who wish to create an world order
where Free Trade in Hazardous Wastes and End-of-Life Ships gets legalised so
that major ship owning companies/countries can escape decontamination cots. I
am enclosing a copy of the Bangladesh Ship Recycling Act 2018 (Bangla
text). I have reliably learnt that that some foreign global
shipping lobbies are work to ensure that India ratifies IMO's "Hong Kong
International Convention for the Safe and Environmentally Sound Recycling of
Ships, 2009 (the Hong Kong Convention)" which has not come into force
because shipbreakers, environmental and labour groups of India, Bangladesh and
Pakistan are opposed to it as it is anti-environment, anti-workers and contrary
to supreme national interest.
I submit that these lobbies have
succeeded in Bangladesh. A bill titled, 'Bangladesh Ship Recycling Bill, 2018,'
was passed in their parliament in January 2018. The Bill was introduced by
their Industries Minister Mr Amir Hossain Amu and it was passed by voice vote.
Under the new law, a 13-member Board is supposed to be constituted to oversee
the activities of the ship recycling industries with an additional secretary of
the Ministry of Industries as its chairman in Bangladesh.
I submit that ahead of the
entry into force of the Ban Amendment to Basel Convention which prohibits
dumping of hazardous wastes and end-of-life products in myriad disguises, it
seemed surprising that on 20th November, 2019, Press Information
Bureau, Government of India announced that Cabinet has approved “proposal for
enactment of Recycling of Ships Bill, 2019 and accession to the Hong Kong
International Convention for Safe and Environmentally Sound Recycling of Ships,
2009.” It seems the Cabinet which rightly acknowledges that “The ship-recycling
industry is a labour-intensive sector, but it is susceptible to concerns on
environmental safety” has been misled by some external lobbies at work with an
aim to outwit India into disregarding its position against dumping of hazardous
wastes through linguistic corruption wherein waste is defined as “non-new good”
or recyclable material.
I submit that that the
Parliamentary Committee on Science and Technology, Environment, Forests and
Climate Change may be asked to examine the compelling logic for India to ratify
the Ban Amendment that prohibits the export of hazardous waste from more
developed to less developed countries and to examine reasons for recommending
why India should not ratify the Hong Kong Convention.
I submit that it is a matter of
distressed that India’s callousness towards the UN accord to stop the flow of
hazardous wastes from developed to developing countries like India is akin to
opposing Hon’ble Prime Minister’s Clean India Mission. It is also in violation
of Hon’ble Supreme Court’s verdict in Writ Petition (Civil) No.657 of 1995
based on the recommendations of Prof. M.G.K. Menon headed High Powered
Committee on Hazardous Wastes that dealt with ship breaking at length.
Such indifference lowers the stature of India and its scientific community
because it is contrary to sustainable consumption and the circular economy
as well as the Sustainable Development Goals. Our India cannot be turned into a
land of landfills for foreign hazardous wastes. Unless all the waste that is
generated in our own country has been treated and disposed of in an
environmentally sound manner how can hazardous waste import be permitted?
I submit that passage of The
Recycling of Ships Bill, 2019 by Rajya Sabha will tantamount to
ratification of the Hong Kong Convention which facilitates trade in
hazardous wastes related to end-of-life ships, which are also hazardous wastes
as per Basel Convention. How can this happen in a business as usual manner
unmindful of Hon’ble Prime Minister’s Clean India Mission and Hon’ble Court’s
verdict. This position is inconsistent with National Environment Policy that
includes strategies for cleanup of toxic and hazardous waste dump legacies,
developing a national inventory of such dumps, an online monitoring system for
movement of hazardous wastes and taking legal measures for addressing
emergencies arising out of transportation, handling, and disposal of hazardous
wastes. India’s current position seems to be inconsistent with our Hon’ble
Prime Minister’s Clean India Mission.
According to the verdict of
Hon’ble Court, “Hazardous Wastes are highly toxic in nature. The
industrialization has had the effect of generation of huge quantities of
hazardous wastes. These and other side effects of development gave birth
to principles of sustainable development so as to sustain industrial growth.
The hazardous waste required adequate and proper control and handling.
Efforts are required to be made to minimise it. In developing nations,
there are additional problems including that of dumping of hazardous waste on
their lands by some of the nations where cost of destruction of such waste is
felt very heavy. These and other allied problems gave birth to Basel
Convention.” This verdict has been given in Writ Petition (Civil) No.657
of 1995. The Convention was made part of its order by the Hon’ble Court due to
alarming situation created by dumping of hazardous waste, its generation and
serious and irreversible damage, as a result thereof, to the environment, flora
and fauna, health of animals and human beings. Hon’ble Court took cognizance of
dumping of hazardous wastes in Indian waters as violation of Article 14 and 21
of the Constitution of India. It is evident from it that the position of this
Indian delegate betrays his ignorance about the issue;
I wish inform you that such
motivated attempts have attracted widespread criticism from environment, public
health groups and even the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) when
hazardous wastes and hazardous materials and recyclable materials was being
made synonymous. by redefining "hazardous waste" as "hazardous
material" in a manifest act of linguistic corruption. It is noteworthy
that in a study, Associated Chambers of Commerce & Industry (ASSOCHAM) also
recommended ban on trade in hazardous wastes. Two members of Hon’ble Court's
own monitoring committee on hazardous wastes have also raised objections They
who are complicit in promoting hazardous waste dumping in our country are doing
so at the behest of hazardous waste traders. Their role needs to be probed by
the Parliamentary Committee.
I wish to draw your attention
towards Basel Convention’s very clear and simple definition of waste: wastes
are materials which are disposed of, or intended to be disposed of, or required
to be disposed of, to the environment”. Hon’ble Court’s verdict has directed
the Union of India to incorporate the Basel list in the existing Rules and had
actively argued for expanding the list of prohibited items for import. If India
does not revise its position it will amounts to a formal announcement that
India is welcoming globalisation of the toxic hazardous waste and its arrival
in Indian waters. Instead of falling into the trap of hazardous waste traders,
India should call for the development of guidance to aid countries to help
prohibit efforts to reclassify hazardous waste as non-waste in an exercise of
circuitous definition. Hazardous waste exporters from rich countries have been
consistently seeking to export toxic scrap to India and likewise, there has
been a similar trend among businesses in the India to import such waste.
This is being done despite the fact that National Environment Policy
acknowledges how "Environmental factors are estimated as being responsible
in some cases for nearly 20 percent of the burden of disease in India";
I submit that India must take a
principled stand in tune with the main principles of this UN treaty which are:
transboundary movements of hazardous wastes should be reduced to a minimum
consistent with their environmentally sound management; hazardous wastes should
be treated and disposed of as close as possible to their source of generation;
and hazardous waste generation should be reduced and minimized at source. The
present position is contrary to these principles and stands in manifest
contrast with its position in 1992.
Sir, you may recollect that by
decision III/1, of September 22, 1995, at COP-3, the Third meeting of the
Conference of the Contracting Parties to the above Convention that took place
in Geneva in September 1995, adopted an Amendment to the Convention. This bans
the export of hazardous wastes for final disposal and recycling from rich
countries to poorer countries. This Article reads as follows: “Instruments of
ratification, approval, formal confirmation or acceptance of amendments shall
be deposited with the Depositary. Amendments adopted in accordance with
paragraphs 3 or 4 [of article 17 of the Convention] shall enter into force
between Parties having accepted them on the ninetieth day after the receipt by
the Depositary of their instrument of ratification, approval, formal
confirmation or acceptance by at least three-fourths of the Parties who
accepted them or by at least two thirds of the Parties to the protocol
concerned who accepted them, except as may otherwise be provided in such
protocol. The amendments shall enter into force for any other Party on the
ninetieth day after that Party deposits its instrument of ratification,
approval, formal confirmation or acceptance of the amendments.” The Ban
Amendment has now entered into force without India. Its parent treaty, the
Basel Convention is in force and India is a party to it.
I submit that under the influence
of countries like USA, Germany, United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, South Korea
and Japan in general and U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the world’s largest business
federation representing the interests of more than 3 million businesses,
International Chamber of Commerce, US Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries
and Bureau of International Recycling (BIR), the international trade federation
representing the world’s recycling industry, India’s position have faced
continued dilution. These countries and interests never wished Basel
Convention, Ban Amendment and compliant Rules to come into force.
I submit that the Parliamentary
Committee on Science and Technology, Environment, Forests and Climate Change
may be requested to examine how as part of Clean India Mission, our Government
can try to regain its original stance of being a strong opponent of the
international waste trade and an ardent supporter ban on toxic waste exports
from the world’s richest countries to less industrialized ones. Government of
India should recollect its position at the First Conference of Parties to the
Basel Convention in Piriapolis, Uruguay, from 3-4 December, 1992. Shri A.
Bhattacharja, Head of the Indian delegation who pleaded with industrialized
countries to stop exporting hazardous waste. “You industrial countries have
been asking us to do many things for the global good — to stop cutting down our
forests, to stop using your CFCs. Now we are asking you to do something for the
global good: keep your own waste.” Government of India was firm even at the
Second Basel Convention Conference of Parties, in March 1994 and advocated ban
on all hazardous waste exports from the world’s most industrialized
countries, the members of the Organization of Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD) to non-industrialized countries like India. It was only in
1995 that Government of India revised its position at the Third Basel
Conference of Parties in September 1995 under the harmful influence of
representatives of the US and Australia.
I submit that US Government and
ICC have been instrumental in outwitting the UN ban on hazardous waste trade
through bilateral Free Trade Agreements between countries. In one of its
position paper on the Basel Convention, ICC has even called for the ban on
hazardous waste to be stopped by the World Trade Organization (WTO) because it
is trade disruptive. This undermines the customary environmental law
principles.
To safeguard our country’s
environmental security and maritime security, India should not allow itself to
be misled by hazardous waste traders who are blinded by their lust for profit
at any human and environmental cost. In any case the truth about who all were
immorally, unethically and unpatriotically complicit with merchants of death,
the hazardous waste traders and who all defended public health will not remain
hidden for long. This is required to ensure that foreign toxic waste does not
flow in the veins and arteries of present and future Indians.
In view of the above facts, I
wish to request you to save India from becoming the dumping ground of rich countries
by referring The Recycling of Ships Bill, 2019 to the above mentioned
Parliamentary Committee.
Thanking you in anticipation
warm
regards
Gopal Krishna
ToxicsWatch
E-mail: 1715krishna@gmail.com
Web: www.toxicswatch.org
Why India should support Ban Amendment to UN’s Basel Convention on Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal to prevent dumping of toxic waste
Written By krishna on Sunday, April 30, 2017 | 7:40 PM
To
Shri Bishwanath
Sinha
Joint Secretary
Union Ministry
of Environment, Forests & Climate Change
Government of India
Subject: Why India should support Ban Amendment to UN’s Basel
Convention on Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes and Their
Disposal to prevent dumping of toxic waste
Sir,
With reference to the invitation from Union Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change seeking comments and suggestions on matters of the Basel Convention (BC), Rotterdam Convention (RC) and Stockholm Convention (RC) and with regard to an inconsistent position taken by one of the Indian delegates at the thirteenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the UN’s Basel Convention (BC COP13) on Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal, we submit the following:
1. We are distressed to learn that on the opening
day of the BC COP13 India’s official delegation shocked the UN Meeting with its statement
in opposition
to UN accord
to stop the flow of hazardous wastes from developed to
developing countries like India. This is akin to
opposing Hon’ble Prime
Minister’s Clean India Mission and is in violation of Hon’ble Supreme Court’s
verdict in Writ
Petition (Civil) No.657 of 1995;
2. We have learnt that Dr Sonu Singh, one of the official delegates from our country gave a speech crticising the
Ban Amendment to Basel Convention on Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes and Their
Disposal. He lowered the stature
of India and its scientific community by claiming
that the Ban Amendment is contrary to sustainable consumption and the circular
economy as well as the Sustainable Development Goals. He made a bizaare claim that India
allows imports of hazardous waste under careful conditions and this is part of its national strategy. India
was the ONLY country which made
such a statement. How can he make claims about non-existent services and infrastructure to
deal with their hazardous waste and other wastes in the absence of required
infrastructure like laboratories, treatment facilities and land in the country
which can be used for testing samples of imported waste and treatment and
landfills? Our India cannot be turned into a land of
landfills for foreign hazardous wastes. Unless all the
waste that is generated in our own country has been
treated and disposed of in an environmentally sound manner how can hazardous waste
import be permitted?;
3. This is an admission that trade in
hazardous waste will happen in a business as usual manner
unmindful of Hon’ble Prime Minister’s Clean India Mission
and Hon’ble Court’s verdict. This position is inconsistent with National Environment Policy that includes strategies for cleanup of
toxic and hazardous waste dump legacies, developing a national inventory of
such dumps, an online monitoring system for movement of hazardous wastes and
taking legal measures for addressing emergencies arising out of transportation,
handling, and disposal of hazardous wastes. All other
Parties who spoke at CoP 13 voiced their very
strong support for the Ban Amendment. This delegates’s position
is inconsistent with our Hon’ble Prime Minister’s Clean India Mission as well;
4. According to the verdict
of Hon’ble Court, “Hazardous Wastes are highly toxic in nature.
The industrialization has had the effect of generation of huge quantities of
hazardous wastes. These and other side effects of development gave birth
to principles of sustainable development so as to sustain industrial growth.
The hazardous waste required adequate and proper control and handling.
Efforts are required to be made to minimise it. In developing nations,
there are additional problems including that of dumping of hazardous waste on
their lands by some of the nations where cost of destruction of such waste is
felt very heavy. These and other allied problems gave birth to Basel
Convention.” This verdict has been given in Writ Petition
(Civil) No.657 of 1995. The Convention was made part of its
order by the Hon’ble Court due to alarming situation
created by dumping of hazardous waste, its generation and serious and
irreversible damage, as a result thereof, to the environment, flora and fauna,
health of animals and human beings. Hon’ble Court took
cognizance of dumping of hazardous wastes in Indian waters as violation
of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It is evident from it that the position of this Indian
delegate betrays his ignorance about the issue;
5. We wish inform
you that such motivated
attempts have attracted widespread criticism from
environment, public health groups and even the Confederation of Indian Industry
(CII) when hazardous wastes and hazardous materials and
recyclable materials was being made synonymous. by redefining "hazardous waste"
as "hazardous material" in a manifest act of linguistic
corruption. It is noteworthy that in a study, Associated Chambers of Commerce & Industry (ASSOCHAM) also recommended ban on trade in hazardous wastes. Two members of Hon’ble Court's own
monitoring committee on hazardous wastes have also raised
objections They who are complicit in promoting hazardous waste
dumping in our country are doing so at the behest of hazardous waste
traders. Their role needs to be probed;
6. We wish to draw your attention towards the fact that European Union has fully implemented the Basel Ban in
its Waste Shipment Regulation, making it legally binding in all EU member
states. Norway and Switzerland have similarly fully implemented the Basel Ban
in their legislation. In the light of
the blockage concerning the entry into force of the Ban amendment, a
“Country-led Initiative” (CLI) was launched which
was adopted at
COP10 of the Basel Convention on Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes and Their
Disposal, the opponents of the Ban Amendment agreed to stand down and not to publicly
fight against it
anymore. Such
statement from the Indian delegate in question is quite at variance with India’s Clean India Mission which
is so dear to our Hon’ble Prime Minister;
7. We are quite disgusted to
hear this delegate making an unscientific claim saying
that the Basel Ban Amendment works against Sustainable Development Goals. How can he be allowed to make baseless claims to the
effect that India’s
technology is infallible to import of hazardous wastes. Such statements are contrary to India’s public health and exposes India’s
insensitivity towards environmental health. It is unbecoming of India’s statuture to take such a position
at a UN meeting. This is not the way to make Clean India Mission sucessful as desired by
our Hon’ble Prime Minister;
8. We wish to draw
your attention towards Basel
Convention’s very clear and simple definition of waste:
wastes are materials which are disposed of, or intended to be disposed of, or
required to be disposed of, to the environment”. Hon’ble Court’s verdict has directed the Union of India
to incorporate the Basel list in the existing Rules and had actively argued for
expanding the list of prohibited items for import;
9. We submit that
the position ariculated by our delegate is in complete contrast to the
revised EU Waste Shipment Regulations, to which all EU member nations need to
comply. The new EU rules now require a tracking document to accompany shipments
of non-hazardous materials designated as waste, including recyclables. But the
scrap industry feels that the complexity of information required by the new EU
rules was totally illogical, complaining that it did not offer clear
environment benefit. If senior officials endorse this anti-India
position of Dr Singh then it amounts to a formal announcement that India is welcoming globalisation of the toxic hazardous waste and it arrival in Indian waters. India
should call for the development of guidance to aid countries to help prohibit efforts to reclassify hazardous waste as non-waste in an exercise of circuitous
defintition. Hazardous waste exporters from rich
countries have been consistently seeking to export toxic scrap to India and
likewise, there has been a similar trend amongst businesses in the India to
import such waste. This is being done despite the fact that National
Environment Policy acknowledges how "Environmental factors are estimated
as being responsible in some cases for nearly 20 percent of the burden of
disease in India";
10. We urge you to
review the position taken by Dr Sonu Singh and articulate Government of India’s intention to
ratify the Ban Amendment to Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary
Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal. India missed the opportunity
of ratifying it before the Twelfth Conference of the Parties held in Geneva
during 4-15 May, 2015.
11. We submit that
India must take a principled stand in tune with the main principles of this UN treaty which are: transboundary movements of hazardous wastes should be
reduced to a minimum consistent with their environmentally sound management;
hazardous wastes should be treated and disposed of as close as possible to
their source of generation; and hazardous waste generation should be reduced
and minimized at source. This position of Dr
Singh is contrary to these principles and stands in manifest contrast
with its position in 1992.
12. You may
recollect that by decision
III/1, of September 22, 1995, at COP-3, the Third meeting of the Conference of
the Contracting Parties to the above Convention that took place in Geneva in
September 1995, adopted an Amendment to the Convention. This bans the export of
hazardous wastes for final disposal and recycling from rich countries to poorer
countries. This Article reads as follows: “Instruments of ratification,
approval, formal confirmation or acceptance of amendments shall be deposited
with the Depositary. Amendments adopted in accordance with paragraphs 3 or 4
[of article 17 of the Convention] shall enter into force between Parties having
accepted them on the ninetieth day after the receipt by the Depositary of their
instrument of ratification, approval, formal confirmation or acceptance by at
least three-fourths of the Parties who accepted them or by at least two thirds
of the Parties to the protocol concerned who accepted them, except as may
otherwise be provided in such protocol. The amendments shall enter into force for
any other Party on the ninetieth day after that Party deposits its instrument
of ratification, approval, formal confirmation or acceptance of the
amendments.” The Ban Amendment has not entered into force
despite the fact that 89 parties have accepted
it becasue that requires ratification by 3/4 of the
member states to the Convention as per Article 17.5. So far, the
Parties of the Basel Convention have not been able to agree as to whether
this would be three fourth of the Parties that were Party to the Basel
Convention when the Ban was adopted, or three fourth of the current Parties of
the Convention. This amendment
was to enter into force following ratification by 62 parties as per Article 17
(5) of the Convention. Ban Amendment needs ratification of only 12 more members for it to come into
force. We submit that the parent
treaty, the Basel Convention has been ratified by 183 countries;
13. Under the influence of countries like
USA, Germany, United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, South Korea and Japan in
general and U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the world’s largest business federation
representing the interests of more than 3 million businesses, International
Chamber of Commerce, US Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries and Bureau of
International Recycling (BIR), the international trade federation representing
the world’s recycling industry, India’s position have faced continued dilution. These countries
and interests never wished Convention, Ban Amendment and
compliant Rules to come into force;
14.
As part of Clean
India Mission, our Government should try to
regain its original stance of being a strong opponent of the international
waste trade and an ardent supporter ban on toxic waste exports from the world’s
richest countries to less industrialized ones. Government of India should
recollect its position at the First Conference of Parties to the Basel
Convention in Piriapolis, Uruguay, from 3-4 December, 1992. Shri A.
Bhattacharja, Head of the Indian delegation who pleaded with industrialized
countries to stop exporting hazardous waste. “You industrial countries have
been asking us to do many things for the global good — to stop cutting down our
forests, to stop using your CFCs. Now we are asking you to do something for the
global good: keep your own waste.” Government of India was
firm even at the Second Basel Convention Conference of Parties, in March 1994
and advocated ban on all hazardous waste exports from the world’s most
industrialized countries, the members of the Organization of Economic Cooperation
and Development (OECD) to non-industrialized countries like India. It was only in 1995 that Government of India revised its
position at the Third Basel Conference of Parties in September 1995 under the
harmful influence of representatives of the US and Australia. This led to an Indian delegate announcing that it was
reconsidering its position on the Basel Ban as a consequence of the
regressive statement of Shri Kamal Nath, the then Union Minister of Environment
& Forests who averred, “We are against environmentally unfriendly
recycling. We are not against the movement of waste, provided the recipient has
adequate equipment, facility and the proper process to deal with it.” This was
a direct assault on intent of Basel Convention. It was the first nail in the
coffin. Consequently, India did not ratify the ‘Ban Amendment’ to the Basel
Convention, which could have stopped the import of hazardous waste and stopped
India from becoming a leading dumping ground;
15.
We submit that US
Government and ICC have been instrumental in outwitting the UN ban on hazardous
waste trade through bilateral Free Trade Agreements between countries. In one
of its position paper on the Basel Convention, ICC has even called for the ban
on hazardous waste to be stopped by the World Trade Organization (WTO) because
it is trade disruptive. This undermines the customary environmental law
principles. It is noeowrthy that Wikileaks has revealed
how the US Government ensured that the same Shri Kamal Nath was not made the
Commerce Minister again for his position in WTO negotiations in a different
context;
16.
To safeguard our country’s environmental security and
maritime security, India
should not allow itself to be misled by hazardous
waste traders who are blinded by their lust for profit at any human and
environmental cost. In any case the truth about who all were immorally,
unethically and unpatriotically complicit with merchants of death, the
hazardous waste traders and who all defended public health will not remain
hidden for long. It is high time
the present Government disassociated itself from the regressive legacy and adopted
its glorious legacy to safeguard India’s supreme national interest and the
health of present and future generations;
In view of the above facts, before the UN meeting ends on May 5, Government should
articulate its support for Ban
Amendment and ratify it in order to save
India from becoming the dumping ground of rich countries which are transferring
harm becasue they want to protect their own environment and public health.
The review of Dr Sonu Singh’s position provides a chance
to recover the lost ground and re-adopt our 1992 position
and ask the rich countries to “keep your own waste” for global common good. We earnestly appeal to you to ensure that foreign toxic waste
does not flow in the veins and arteries of present and future Indians.
Thanking you in anticipation
Warm
Regards
Dr Gopal Krishna
ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA)
Mb: 08227816731, 09818089660
E-mail-1715krishna@gmail.com
Web: www.toxicswatch.org
Dr Gopal Krishna
ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA)
Mb: 08227816731, 09818089660
E-mail-1715krishna@gmail.com
Web: www.toxicswatch.org
Cc
Shri Anil Madhav Dave, Union Ministry
of Environment, Forests & Climate Change
Shri Nripendra Misra, Principal
Secretary to Prime Minister
Shri Pradeep Kumar Sinha, Cabinet Secretary
Shri Ajit Doval, National Security
Advisor
Shri Arvind Panagariya,
Vice Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Niti Aayog
Shri Ajay Narayan Jha, Secretary, Union Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change
We
may admire what he does, but we despise what he is."-referring to humans
who act mechanically on instructions -------Wilhelm von Humboldt, 1792
Maersk dictates governments’ position in India & Denmark, promotes waste imperialism in ecologically fragile Alang
Written By mediavigil on Monday, December 19, 2016 | 5:30 AM
ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA)
To
Shri Mukul Roy
Chairman
Parliamentary Standing Committee (PSC) on Transport, Tourism and Culture
Parliamentary Standing Committee (PSC) on Transport, Tourism and Culture
Parliament of India
New Delhi
Through Shri Swarabji. B., Director, PSC on Transport, Tourism and Culture
Date: December 17, 2016
Subject- Maersk dictates governments’ position in India & Denmark, promotes waste imperialism in ecologically fragile Alang, Gujarat, lobbying for proposed regressive Hong Kong Convention
Sir,
Pursuant to my earlier communication to you dated October 29, 2016, this is to inform you that the reply of Danish Environment Minister, Mr Esben Lunde Larsen in the Danish Parliament reveals that Maersk, the biggest company of Denmark is dictating governments’ position in Denmark and India in the face of Danish opposition parties seeking stoppage of beaching of Maersk vessels in ecologically fragile Alang, Gujarat. This came to light on 14 December following questions put to the Government by all the opposition parties in Danish Parliament.
We submit that questions of opposition parties were occasioned by the revelations of Maersk’s shipbreaking practices in India in particular and South Asia in general by the Danish investigative journalists, Danwatch, and the daily newspaper, Politiken. All opposition parties called on the Danish Government to ensure that Maerk’s end-of-life vessels cannot be broken down on the beaches in India and South Asia.
We submit that Danish Government failed to inform as to how the Government would work to stop Danish companies’ use of the polluting and dangerous beaching practices in India and South Asia. It failed to respond to Maersk’s threat to swap the Danish flag for a non-EU flag if the EU does not approve ship recycling on the beaches of Alang.
We submit that the MPs present in the Danish Parliament represented Danish opposition political parties (including Social democrat member of parliament, Christian Rabjerg Madsen, and the head of Socialistisk Folkeparti, Pia Olsen Dyhr, as well as Ida Auken from Radikale Venstre, Christian Poll from Alternativet, and Marie Reumert Gjerding from Enhedslisten) and the Chair (Pia Adelsteen from Dankse Folkeparti). There were questions raised as to whether the government is pressing the EU Commission to list beaching yards in Alang on the upcoming EU list of accepted facilities world-wide.
We submit that Danish parliamentarians observed that if ships were broken on beaches in Denmark there would be outrage. Danish opposition political parties asked the Danish Government to articulate its position on unsafe working conditions and protection from pollution could ever be ensured when dismantling a vessel in the intertidal zone of beaches like Alang, Gujarat.
We submit that Danish Government feigned ignorance about the shipbreaking industry, UN’s Basel Convention on Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal and EU Ship Recycling Regulation.
We submit that Danish Government has admitted that flagging out to circumvent EU law is not compatible with responsible business practices but avoided questions on how it would make sure that Danish shipping companies only use facilities that are on the upcoming EU List of approved recycling practices, and which is not expected to include facilities that use the beaching method.
We submit that Maersk has been violating Indian laws and Basel Convention. This came to light from the recent report of DanWatch (October, 2016) about the conditions at Alang beach, Bhavnagar, Gujarat. The report emerged out of the collaborative investigation by DanWatch, the daily newspaper Politiken and broadcaster TV 2.
The report is available at
https://www.danwatch.dk/en/und
We submit that ships of Maersk are in violation of Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order and the Shipbreaking Code. Hon’ble Court has upheld UN’s Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal. The implication of this direction is that all the ships which are entering the Indian territorial waters have to show compliance of Hon’ble Court’s order seeking prior decontamination of the ship in the country of export. In case there is non-compliance, all these ships should go back to country of origin. Hon’ble Court has categorically said in its order of July 2012 that all Ships coming for dismantling have to follow Basel Convention and if there is any violation, action should be taken according to the Municipal Laws.
We wish to draw your attention towards the 15 page judgment of Hon’ble Court dated July 30, 2012 in the matter of end of life US ship Exxon Valdez. Hon’ble Court conclusively 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."
The July 30, 2012 judgment reads: "Such relief would, of course, be subject to compliance with all the formalities as required by the judgments and orders passed by this Court on 14th October, 2003, 6thSeptember, 2007 and 11th September, 2007 in the Writ Petition."
The fact is Hon'ble Court order of October 14, 2003 reads: "At the international level, India should participate in international meetings on ship-breaking at the level of the International Maritime Organisation and the Basel Convention’s Technical Working Group with a clear mandate for the decontamination of ships of their hazardous substances such as asbestos, waste oil, gas and PCBs, prior to export to India for breaking. Participation should include from Central and State level.”
We submit that the report of Danwatch et al underline the dubious practices of Maersk in the sale of 14 ships for dismantling on the beaches of Bangladesh and India. ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA) has learnt that these reports have been broadcasted and published on TV2 and Politiken respectively besides its dissemination by others in the media. We wish to inform you that drawing on DanWatch findings a Brussels based group NGO Platform on Shipbreaking has disclosed that in late 2013,Maersk sought early termination of a charter party for 14 ships due to the vessels’ poor rentability and the general overcapacity in the container ship market.
https://www.danwatch.dk/en/und
We submit that ships of Maersk are in violation of Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order and the Shipbreaking Code. Hon’ble Court has upheld UN’s Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal. The implication of this direction is that all the ships which are entering the Indian territorial waters have to show compliance of Hon’ble Court’s order seeking prior decontamination of the ship in the country of export. In case there is non-compliance, all these ships should go back to country of origin. Hon’ble Court has categorically said in its order of July 2012 that all Ships coming for dismantling have to follow Basel Convention and if there is any violation, action should be taken according to the Municipal Laws.
We wish to draw your attention towards the 15 page judgment of Hon’ble Court dated July 30, 2012 in the matter of end of life US ship Exxon Valdez. Hon’ble Court conclusively 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."
The July 30, 2012 judgment reads: "Such relief would, of course, be subject to compliance with all the formalities as required by the judgments and orders passed by this Court on 14th October, 2003, 6thSeptember, 2007 and 11th September, 2007 in the Writ Petition."
The fact is Hon'ble Court order of October 14, 2003 reads: "At the international level, India should participate in international meetings on ship-breaking at the level of the International Maritime Organisation and the Basel Convention’s Technical Working Group with a clear mandate for the decontamination of ships of their hazardous substances such as asbestos, waste oil, gas and PCBs, prior to export to India for breaking. Participation should include from Central and State level.”
We submit that the report of Danwatch et al underline the dubious practices of Maersk in the sale of 14 ships for dismantling on the beaches of Bangladesh and India. ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA) has learnt that these reports have been broadcasted and published on TV2 and Politiken respectively besides its dissemination by others in the media. We wish to inform you that drawing on DanWatch findings a Brussels based group NGO Platform on Shipbreaking has disclosed that in late 2013,Maersk sought early termination of a charter party for 14 ships due to the vessels’ poor rentability and the general overcapacity in the container ship market.
We submit that revelations in the Danish media and Danish Parliament about Maersk’s dubious deals shows that unlike in the past Danish Government has not been acting to ensure compliance with Basel Convention.
We submit that Maersk did a volte face and has continued in a business as usual manner of contaminating Alang beach.
We submit that Maersk did a volte face and has continued in a business as usual manner of contaminating Alang beach.
We submit that Maersk plans to transfer some five dozen ships to the beaching yards in South Asian waters by disassociating itself from its off-the-beach policy.
We submit that in manifest violation of existing international law and
national laws, Shree Ram company received a Statement of Compliance with the Hong Kong Convention (which is yet to come into force) from the Japanese classification society ClassNK in December 2015.
We submit that in a public relations exercise Maersk invited international and Danish journalists to a tour of the Alang shipbreaking yards in the last week of September 2016. Prior to this European Community of Shipowners’ Associations (ECSA) too had organized a visit for selected EU Member State representatives and national ship owners’ associations to Alang. Both these visits ensured that civil society and independent persons do not witness the ongoing poisoning of Alang beach.
We submit that comprehensive report based on site visit inside Shree Ram shipbreaking yard in Alang shows that Hon’ble Court’s order and Code has been violated with impunity. The report shows how the inter-state migrant workers from states like Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Jharkhand and Odisha are exposed to hazardous risks in the process of dismantling of ships in the ecologically fragile coastal zone.
We submit that Gujarat Maritime Board and Gujarat Pollution Control Board is complicit in allowingMaersk to promote environmentally damaging beaching method, which has been abandoned by Europe, the US and China.
We submit that Gujarat Maritime Board and Gujarat Pollution Control Board is complicit in allowingMaersk to promote environmentally damaging beaching method, which has been abandoned by Europe, the US and China.
We submit that your committee should examine the practices of Maersk and its competitors like Hapag Lloyd, Wilhelmsen, Wallenius, Hoegh, Grieg, CSL and Royal Dutch Boskalis.
We submit that contrary to the claims of Maersk and Shree Ram comopany most of the vessels being dismantled are contaminating the beach sand and water because containment of pollution is impossible on a beach.
We submit that the recent report reveals that workers face grave enviro-occupational health hazards and unsafe working environment. The workers who employed at Shree Ram and who involved in the demolition of the Maersk Georgia and the Maersk Wyoming do not have any contract or any written document regarding their employment.
We submit that the recent report reveals that workers face grave enviro-occupational health hazards and unsafe working environment. The workers who employed at Shree Ram and who involved in the demolition of the Maersk Georgia and the Maersk Wyoming do not have any contract or any written document regarding their employment.
We submit that workers in Alang do not have proper housing, sanitation facility and hospital for severe injuries.
TWA deprecates efforts by Maersk and other European agencies besides other ship owners to act as if Hong Kong Convention on Ship Recycling is a fait accompli although it is unlikely to come into force. This Convention is anti-India, anti-environment and anti-worker.
We submit that the story of the entry of these Danish ships is just the tip of the iceberg. This ship of US origin is treading the questionable path of infamous ships whose questionable entry was fought legally. These ships include RIKY (ex-Kong Frederik IX, which entered on a flag of a country named ROXA which does not exist), Le Clemenceau, SS Blue Lady (ex- SS France, SS Norway), Platinum II (ex- SS Oceanic, SS Independence) and Exxon Valdez (renamed Oriental Nicety) and others. It may be recalled that Shree Ram was involved in the Le Clemenceau case where it was proven wrong.
We submit that the dead vessel contains hazardous materials, making its final voyage from the Europe to India illegal waste trafficking under the Basel Convention, which controls the transboundary movements of hazardous wastes. These vessels contain polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and asbestos like hazardous substances.
We submit that given the fact that both Denmark and India are Parties to the Basel Convention, both have failed to fulfill their responsibility and their clear legal obligations and have endorsed the environmental injustice of free global trade in toxic waste.
We submit that the hazardous waste management costs and occupational health safety costs of the dead ships in question would have been significant in the Europe, perhaps even higher than the value of scrap metals contained in the vessel, especially with commodity prices so low. Hazardous waste management costs are not an important consideration at the beach breaking facilities on Alang beach, Bhvanagar, Gujarat. Hazardous waste streams, PCBs in particular, aren't treated or disposed of with the necessary care, hence a cost savings at the expense of environmental and human health.
We submit that asbestos-containing materials are even being resold for further use although asbestos is banned in over 50 countries and Government of India too has announced that it is considering to imposition of ban on the killer mineral fibers of asbestos because it is impossible to use it safely and in a controlled manner.
We submit that it should not be forgotten that under the watch of DG
Shipping and Indian Coast Guard Danish ship RIKY had entered Indian waters during Shri A Raja years. Till date institutional accountability for allowing the entry of this dubious ship has not been fixed.
We submit that waste follows the path of least resistance. Unlike governments in Europe which have maintained a policy that requires protection of its beaches, Government of India has been offering it’s ecologically cherished and biodiversity rich beaches for end-of-life ships to richer countries. These Governments allows their private ship-owners to legally reflag their vessels for disposal on foreign beaches like the ones in Alang, Gujarat.
We submit that our Inter-Ministerial Committee (IMC) on Shipbreaking since its creation in 2004 in compliance with the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated October 14, 2003 till its replacement without intimating the Hon’ble Court made several recommendations for remedial measures.
We submit that Maersk ships are violating the Shipbreaking Code 2013 which has been prepared in compliance with Hon’ble Court’s order of 6th September, 2007 states at clause 8.3.6 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.” It is noteworthy that prior to the notification of the Code in the Gazette on 7th March, 2013, the subject matter of ship breaking was with the Union 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 given the fact that the shipbreaking is admittedly an exercise in secondary steel production.
(Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961 given the fact that the shipbreaking is admittedly an exercise in secondary steel production.
We wish to draw your attention towards an affidavit filed in the Hon’ble Supreme Court on July 16, 2012 by Shri Sugandh Shripad Gadkar, Deputy Director General (Technical), Directorate General of Shipping, Mumbai wherein he stated that the Union Ministry of Shipping “does not come in picture” in the matter of shipbreaking. 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 a Shipbreaking Code. The core question is 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 now.
We demand a parliamentary inquiry into the circumstances which led to this decision 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 Union Ministry of Shipping has informed the Rajya Sabha 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”?
We submit that Union Ministry of Shipping has informed the Rajya Sabha 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”?
In such a situation the decision of transferring decision making with regard to shipbreaking to a ministry which has admittedly failed to save country’s coastal environment from “Different type of dangerous
and Hazardous goods” is highly questionable.
and Hazardous goods” is highly questionable.
We submit that there is a strong apprehension that lobbies from Europe and countries like USA and Japan have been 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 International Maritime Organisation (IMO)’s anti-environment and anti-worker Hong Kong Convention on Ship Recycling which is unlikely to come into force. It has come to light that an ex-employee of IMO who was involved in promotion of the questionable text of the Hong Kong Convention is now working with a US based company owned by a person of Gujarati origin, visited concerned government officials in Mumbai and New Delhi in the third week of November 2015 and was present in an official meeting without any locus.
The fact is that Hong Kong Convention is a text which has been prepared under the influence of rich ship owning countries and their companies is meant to sabotage Basel Convention. These transnational
companies who are attempting to escape their decontamination and environmental and occupational healthy safety costs in their own countries have already succeeded in diluting the European regulation
with regard to end-of-life ships. Now they are working to formalize the dilutions that they have achieved in terms of enforcement of pre-existing regulations created on the lines of Basel Convention through repeated attempts to create precedents for transfer of their dead ships without prior-decontamination in the country of export. The case of Maersk ships is part of that game plan.
We submit that the text of Hong Kong Convention which was adopted by the IMO in May 2009 fails to prevent the transboundary movement of hazardous wastes found within end-of-life ships and is insensitive towards human rights and environmental damages caused by shipbreaking yards on the Alang beach in Gujarat. Similar situations exist with regard to ship breaking yards in Bangladesh and Pakistan.
companies who are attempting to escape their decontamination and environmental and occupational healthy safety costs in their own countries have already succeeded in diluting the European regulation
with regard to end-of-life ships. Now they are working to formalize the dilutions that they have achieved in terms of enforcement of pre-existing regulations created on the lines of Basel Convention through repeated attempts to create precedents for transfer of their dead ships without prior-decontamination in the country of export. The case of Maersk ships is part of that game plan.
We submit that the text of Hong Kong Convention which was adopted by the IMO in May 2009 fails to prevent the transboundary movement of hazardous wastes found within end-of-life ships and is insensitive towards human rights and environmental damages caused by shipbreaking yards on the Alang beach in Gujarat. Similar situations exist with regard to ship breaking yards in Bangladesh and Pakistan.
The text fails to incorporate the letter and spirit of the Basel Convention with requirements for other forms of toxic waste. The text fails to reflect Basel Convention’s core obligation - minimisation of transboundary movements of hazardous waste. It fails to outlaw flawed method of breaking ships by “beaching” them in fragile ecosystem to cut and split the ships wide open on tidal flats. The containment of oil and toxic contaminants is not possible. These toxins enter the marine environment. Such working space cannot safely use cranes alongside ships to lift heavy cut pieces or to rescue workers or to bring emergency equipment (ambulances, fire trucks) to the workers or the ships.
We submit that the text of the Hong Kong Convention cremates the 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 text of the Hong Kong Convention cremates the Polluter Pays/Producer Responsibility Principle, Environmental Justice Principle, Waste Prevention/Substitution Principles and Principle of National Self Sufficiency in Waste Management.
Therefore, there is a compelling logic for India to strictly adhere to Basel Convention that covers the recycling and disposal to final disposition, the text of the Hong Kong Convention stops at the gate of the ship recycling yard. It means that the most hazardous substances such as PCBs and asbestos, once removed from the ship is not be covered by this text. In effect, this constitutes weakening of existing international legal regulations against exploitation of migrant workers and the coastal environment by the global shipping industry at the end of the life of a ship.
We submit that most harmful hazardous materials from the dead ships will enter Indian territories via a recycling yard. It is an escape route from the Basel Convention. If they succeed it will burden present and future generations with a toxic legacy.
We submit that the text of Hong Kong Convention fails to ensure the fundamental principle of “Prior Informed Consent”. In this Convention ‘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 being forced to receive toxic waste in the form of ships which can become abandoned and for which their importation cannot be remedied by any right of return.
We submit that International shipping industry is so powerful an industry that it succeeded in their task of shipbreaking transferred from Ministry of Steel to more amenable Ministry of Shipping to do their bidding by ratifying the text of the Hong Kong Convention. It will create a far weaker set of rules for their advantage and establishes a very unhealthy precedent in international law and policy. It is a regressive step with respect to international governance, protection of human rights and the environment. Having succeeded in Paris and Nairobi negotiations on climate and trade, the richer countries like USA are obstinately pursuing the path of undermining Basel Convention from maintaining its legal competency over toxic end-of-life ships. These commercial czars are resisting adoption of green design for ships.
We submit that the main concern is that Maersk ships are end of life ships and the entire ship itself is hazardous waste which is regulated under Basel Convention as it is embedded with asbestos waste, cables containing PCT, heavy metals, paint chips etc. It is noteworthy that Basel Convention is related to the control of trans-boundary movements of hazardous waste and their disposal. Notably, ships destined for ship-breaking operations are "hazardous wastes" under the Convention.
We submit that Maersk is yet another test case that will demonstrate whether or not Government is allowing India to bear the burden of the world’s ship-borne toxic wastes under the influence of ship owners and ship owning countries that deploy all the dirty tricks including linguistic corruption to continue to externalize the real costs and liabilities of ships at end-of-life.
As per Ship Breaking Code 2013, “All ships entering Indian Maritime Zones are required to inform Maritime Rescue Coordination Centre (MRCC). The prior information to Port shall also include that the ship, as it enters Indian Search and Rescue Region (ISRR) should pass its information to MRCC/Indian Coast Guard stating that it is bound for Recycling Yards for ship recycling.” The committee should examine the circumstances that led to anchoring and beaching of these Danish ships in violation of every rule in the rule book.
As per this Code, after intimating Expected Time of Arrival, the shipowner or recycler shall submit the following information/documents 3 weeks before the expected arrival of the ship for recycling for a desk review by the State Maritime Board/Port Authority, State Pollution Control Board and the Customs Department and pay port charges for obtaining permission for the ship to enter the port. It is also relevant to note that as per the Code, “Directorate of Shipping in consultation with Coast Guards Department shall verify the genuineness of the documents submitted by the ship owner or recycler at the desk review stage on the request of SMB/Ports Authority of the State and if it is found that any document is fake or conceal any material fact, ship owner/recycler shall be informed of denial of permission to the ship entering Indian waters.”
As per Ship Breaking Code 2013, “All ships entering Indian Maritime Zones are required to inform Maritime Rescue Coordination Centre (MRCC). The prior information to Port shall also include that the ship, as it enters Indian Search and Rescue Region (ISRR) should pass its information to MRCC/Indian Coast Guard stating that it is bound for Recycling Yards for ship recycling.” The committee should examine the circumstances that led to anchoring and beaching of these Danish ships in violation of every rule in the rule book.
As per this Code, after intimating Expected Time of Arrival, the shipowner or recycler shall submit the following information/documents 3 weeks before the expected arrival of the ship for recycling for a desk review by the State Maritime Board/Port Authority, State Pollution Control Board and the Customs Department and pay port charges for obtaining permission for the ship to enter the port. It is also relevant to note that as per the Code, “Directorate of Shipping in consultation with Coast Guards Department shall verify the genuineness of the documents submitted by the ship owner or recycler at the desk review stage on the request of SMB/Ports Authority of the State and if it is found that any document is fake or conceal any material fact, ship owner/recycler shall be informed of denial of permission to the ship entering Indian waters.”
We submit that Government of India should be held accountable for its colossal failure. It has failed to communicate unequivocally to the enemies of Basel Convention to “Keep your own waste” in order to be eco-friendly. Our country has enough of its own waste. It does not need its dumping in myriad disguises by rich countries. Had regulatory agencies been competent to manage our own waste there would have been no need for a “Swachh Bharat Mission (Clean India Mission)”.
We seek your intervention to ensure that India does not become a dumping ground. Maersk is acting as if rule of law is irrelevant for its operations in India. It is setting a very bad and unhealthy precedent and opening the gates for dumping of hundreds of hazardous dead toxic ships in Indian waters.
It is evident that Government of India is not offering resistance to dumping of wastes because concerned ministers and officials are hand in glove with the hazardous waste traders. There is documentary evidence in this regard. The movement of hazardous waste in the physical space and in the policy space is quite explicit. The domestic rules for regulation of hazardous wastes like end-of-life ships has been framed, reframed, amended and diluted to offer a regime of free trade in hazardous waste to international shipping companies and recyclers. The violation of these rules has been underway for quite some time due to deliberate lack of coordination between central ministries of defense, commerce, finance, shipping, steel, and environment, forests and climate change. In effect, country’s sovereignty is being compromised undermining its security ecosystem.
It is evident that Government of India is not offering resistance to dumping of wastes because concerned ministers and officials are hand in glove with the hazardous waste traders. There is documentary evidence in this regard. The movement of hazardous waste in the physical space and in the policy space is quite explicit. The domestic rules for regulation of hazardous wastes like end-of-life ships has been framed, reframed, amended and diluted to offer a regime of free trade in hazardous waste to international shipping companies and recyclers. The violation of these rules has been underway for quite some time due to deliberate lack of coordination between central ministries of defense, commerce, finance, shipping, steel, and environment, forests and climate change. In effect, country’s sovereignty is being compromised undermining its security ecosystem.
We submit that enemies of UN’s Basel Convention on Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal are having a field day due to complicity of ministers and officials of questionable integrity. This merits parliamentary inquiry as well.
ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA) has been working on the issue of hazardous wastes and ship breaking for over decade. It has been an invitee and participant in the UN Conventions. It is an applicant before the
National Human Rights Commission (NHRC). It has appeared before the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Science, Technology, Environment & Forests, Parliamentary Petitions Committee, Parliamentary Standing Committee on Food, Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution Parliamentary Standing Committee on Labour and relevant UN agencies besides Inter-Ministerial Committee on Ship breaking. It was the applicant before Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein the order for creation of the Shipbreaking Code was passed. TWA had appeared before the Hon'ble Court’s Monitoring Committee on Hazardous Wastes, Court’s Technical Experts Committee on Hazardous Wastes related to Ship breaking and pursued cases involving famous ships like RIKY (Kong Frederik IX), Le Clemenceau, SS Blue Lady, Platinum II and Exxon Valdez and others. It has been an invitee to UN Meetings and training workshops of Comptroller Auditor General of India on environmental health.
National Human Rights Commission (NHRC). It has appeared before the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Science, Technology, Environment & Forests, Parliamentary Petitions Committee, Parliamentary Standing Committee on Food, Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution Parliamentary Standing Committee on Labour and relevant UN agencies besides Inter-Ministerial Committee on Ship breaking. It was the applicant before Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein the order for creation of the Shipbreaking Code was passed. TWA had appeared before the Hon'ble Court’s Monitoring Committee on Hazardous Wastes, Court’s Technical Experts Committee on Hazardous Wastes related to Ship breaking and pursued cases involving famous ships like RIKY (Kong Frederik IX), Le Clemenceau, SS Blue Lady, Platinum II and Exxon Valdez and others. It has been an invitee to UN Meetings and training workshops of Comptroller Auditor General of India on environmental health.
It is noteworthy that while Government of Gujarat did the right by building Pipavav as as dry dock facility for ship breaking in the 1990s, it failed to follow it up in Alang where environmentally damaging beaching method continue to be adopted. This method has been discontinued in Europe and it is being abandoned in the developed countries.
In view of the above, we seek Committee’s intervention to undertake probe the murky deals of Maerskto uphold its obligations under the Basel Convention and ensure compliance with Hon’ble Court’s orders and the Shipbreaking Code. It should factor in the fact that India being a Party to the Convention has a legal obligation to uphold the treaty it signed in supreme national interest and resist lobbying by vested interests. It should also consider recommending against proposed Hong Kong Convention which is contrary to India’s interest and in order to uphold the letter and spirit of Basel Convention. The Committee should recommend a comprehensive audit by Comptroller Auditor General of India to ascertain the implications of dumping of hundreds of end-of-life ships in Indian waters that is belittling India’s stature among the comity of nations.
We will be happy to appear before the Committee with relevant documents and facts.
Yours faithfully
We will be happy to appear before the Committee with relevant documents and facts.
Yours faithfully
Dr Gopal Krishna
Director
ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA)
ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA)
Mb: 08227816731, 09818089660
Cc
Shri Nitin Gadkari, Union Minister, Ministry of Shipping, Government of India
Hon’ble Members of Parliamentary Standing Committee (PSC) on
Transport, Tourism and Culture-
Shri Narendra Kumar Swain
Shri Lal Sinh Vadodia
Shri Ritabrata Banerjee
Dr. Prabhakar Kore
Shri Rangasayee Ramakrishna
Dr. K. Chiranjeevi
Shri Rajeev Shukla
Ms Kumari Selja
Shri Kiranmay Nanda
Shri Ram Kumar Sharma
Shri Yogi Adityanath
Shri Subrata Bakshi
Shri Ram Charitra
Shri Manoj Kumar Tiwari .
Shri Rajeshbhai Naranbhai Chudasama
Shri Harish Chandra Meena
Shri Kunwar Haribansh Singh
Shri Rahul Kaswan
Shri Ponguleti Srinivasa Reddy
Shri Rajesh Pandey
Shri Prathap Simha
Shri Vinod Chavda
Km. Arpita Ghosh
Shri Dushyant Singh
Shri Rajesh Ranjan (Pappu Yadav)
Shri Rakesh Singh
Shri Kristappa Nimmala
Shri P. Kumar
Shri K. C. Venugopal
Shri Shatrughan Prasad Sinha