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 Hazardous Waste dumping. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hazardous Waste dumping. Show all posts
National Platform for Small Scale Fish Workers rejects the Recycling of Ships Act, 2019
Written By mediavigil on Wednesday, December 11, 2019 | 11:21 PM
National Platform for Small Scale Fish Workers [NPSSFW(I)] rejects the Recycling of Ships Act, 2019 aimed at multiplying the profit of the merchants of death and the investors in ship breaking industry
The Recycling of Ships Act, 2019, though camouflaged as an act to regulate ship breaking industry, is primarily aimed at opening of our coasts for dumping of abandoned ships of the world. Ship breaking is one of the most hazardous industries the world has ever experienced. The abandoned ships are store houses of toxic materials and pollutants. Depending on their size and weight, each abandoned ship contains - between 10 and 100 tons of paint containing lead, cadmium, organotins, arsenic, zinc and chromium. Ships also contain a wide range of other hazardous wastes, sealants containing PCBs, up to 7.5 tones of various types of asbestos and several thousands liters of oil (engine oil, bilge oil, hydraulic and lubricants oils and grease). Tankers additionally hold up to 1,000 cubic meters of residual oil. Most of these materials have been defined as hazardous waste under the Basel Convention*. Ship breaking activities is a threat to both the terrestrial and marine environment as well as to public health.
Until the late 20th century, the majority of ship-breaking activity took place in the port cities of industrialized countries such as the United Kingdom and the United States. But then the industry started shifting to third world countries. Currently, the global center of the ship breaking and recycling industry is located in South Asia, specifically Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan. These three countries account for 70–80 percent of the international market for ship breaking of ocean-going vessels, with China and Turkey accounting for most of the rest. Only about 5 percent of the global volume of such vessels is scrapped outside these five countries. This has happened due to two main reasons - a. availability of cheap labour, and b. adoption of stringent environmental and occupational norms in the developed countries that made ship breaking much costlier.
In the largest ship breaking centre in India at Alang on Gujarat coast the environmental protection has been very limited in most yards and the sound management of asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), ozone-depleting substances (ODS), and a range of heavy metals is virtually nonexistent. The chief concerns are:
- Dismantling of ships in the unprotected intertidal zone instead of dry dock;
- No adequate environmental impact assessment regarding pollution caused by toxics paints, slag and debris released in the intertidal zone, the adequacy of oil spill remediation and air pollution with toxic fumes;
- Lack of sufficient Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and its adequate use as well as lack of proper training, recurrence of accidents and loss of life;
- Unsound hazardous waste management (in particular, re-sale of asbestos-containing materials and lack of PCB-destruction facility);
- Poor living conditions, lack of proper medical facilities, wages lower than living wage;
- No strict law enforcement.
The severe pollution generated at the ship breaking yards of Alang continues to affect severely the air, water and soil quality of the area. Fish stock has almost perished and the fish available there is highly contaminated with heavy metals and other toxics.
The Recycling of Ships Act, 2019 has opened the coasts of India to import abandoned ships for recycling from all over the world. This import of hazardous waste is against the spirit of Basel Convention, of which India has been a signatory. Not only that, without restricting ship breaking in dry dock and allowing it in inter-tidal zones the Act renders itself into an instrument to destroy one of the most eco-sensitive zones. Moreover Environmental damages could worsen as a result of sea level rise. The SBRI location and industrial practices make it highly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change and especially to sea level rise. The ship breaking industry’s legacy pollution could pose significant threats and challenges at both local and regional scales as rising ocean and tide levels submerge beach and near-shore ship breaking areas, washing out accumulated pollutants. In storm surge events, a sudden release of quantities of the contaminated landside beach material into the marine zone may severely affect local fisheries.
The world community took serious note of the seriousness of transboundary movement of hazardous waste way back in 1994 and through BAN amendment proposed prohibition of all transboundary movements of hazardous wastes covered by the Basel Convention that are intended for final disposal, and of all transboundary movements of hazardous wastes that are destined for reuse, recycling or recovery operations.
It is unfortunate that the Government of India, though a party to the Basel Convention, did not sign the BAN amendment. It was an act presumably to enrich the coffers of investors in recycling industries at the cost of our environment, natural resources and the life and livelihood of people dependent on these resources. The small scale fishing communities reject this conspiracy against the people of India.
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
Revealed Maersk’s murky deals promote waste imperialism and lobbying for proposed regressive Hong Kong Convention
Written By mediavigil on Friday, November 04, 2016 | 5:01 AM
ToxicsWatch
Alliance (TWA)
To
Shri Mukul Roy
Chairman
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
Subject- Revealed
Maersk’s murky deals promote waste imperialism and lobbying for
proposed regressive Hong Kong Convention
Sir,
This is to
draw your immediate attention towards the violation of Indian laws, Basel
Convention by two end-of-life ships namely, Maersk Georgia and Maersk Wyoming
and the recent report of DanWatch (October, 2016) about the conditions at Alang
beach, Bhavnagar, Gujarat. Maersk is the world’s biggest ship owning company
based in Denmark.
The report emerged
out of the collaborative investigation by DanWatch, the daily
newspaper Politiken and broadcaster TV 2.
We submit that
both these ships 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, 6th September, 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. Maersk
had previously been the owner of the vessels before they sold them to a
finance construct in Germany, MPC Flottenfonds III, in 2009. Maersk then
continued operating them based on a long-term charter. In 2014, the Platform
investigated that the 14 vessels operated by Maersk had ended up in some of
the worst shipbreaking yards in Bangladesh and India.
It has been
revealed that Maersk’s addendum to the charter contract explicitly asked the
German owner through a clause in the contract to ensure the immediate
demolition of the vessels in order to get them off the market. Maersk
demanded in another clause that the vessels had to be sold for the highest
price available on the scrap market – without any consideration of
environmental or social standards. Maersk put pressure on the ship fund to
sell the 14 vessels for a minimum price of 447 USD per ton, a price that
corresponded at the time to the prices offered in South Asian beaching yards.
No facility operating under safe and sound conditions would have been able to
pay such a high price.
Besides this the
contract between Maersk and MPC states that if MPC were to sell the vessels
for a lower price, Maersk would have to pay the difference and if MPC managed
to sell for a higher price, it was under an obligation to pay Maersk the
difference in profit earned.
We submit that
revelations in the Danish media 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 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
allowing Maersk to promote environme3ntally damaging beaching method, which
has been abandoned by Europe, the US and China.
We submit that
the 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 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
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
Europle, 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. 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
both the MAESRK ships are violating the Shipbreaking Code 2013 which has been
prepared in compliance with 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.
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”?
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.
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.
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.
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 ship owner 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.
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.
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 Maersk to 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
Gopal Krishna
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
