An Ordinary Insanity: A Must-Watch Documentary on the Banalized Threats of
Nuclear Weapons
-
Courtsey: An Ordinary Insanity “In this 29-minute documentary, renowned
whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg provides a powerful wakeup call about the
globa...
Latest Post
Showing posts with label Hazardous waste. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hazardous waste. Show all posts
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
Issues of concern regarding Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management &Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016
Written By mediavigil on Saturday, July 02, 2016 | 3:24 AM
To
Shri Arun Jaitley,
Union Minister
of Finance
Government of
India
New Delhi
Smt. Nirmala
Sitharaman
Union Commerce
and Industry Minister
Government of
India
New Delhi
Date: July 2,
2016
Subject- Issues of
concern regarding Hazardous and
Other Wastes (Management &Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016
Hon’ble
Ministers,
This is to draw
your immediate attention towards some gnawing concerns with regard to Hazardous
and Other Wastes (Management &Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016 which was
notified in The Gazette of India on 4th April, 2016. An examination
of the new Rules released by the Union Minister of Environment, Forest and
Climate Change shows that its provisions are contrary to the objectives of 'Swachh
Bharat Abhiyan' (Clean India Mission) launched on 2nd October,
2014 by the Prime Minister.
I submit that while
the prohibition on import of Waste edible fats and oil of animals, or vegetable
origin; Household waste; Critical Care Medical equipment; Tyres for direct
re-use purpose; Solid Plastic wastes including Pet bottles; Waste electrical
and electronic assemblies scrap and Other chemical wastes especially in solvent
form is praiseworthy but the continuance of patronage to international and
national hazardous waste traders is contrary to supreme national interest.
I wish to
inform you that the new Hazardous rule-2016 which was declared on 4th
April, 2016 is not being implemented. Despite the new Rule for solid plastic
waste, Customs at Sea port (including Mundra-Gujarat, Nhavasheva-Maharashtra, ICD-TKD
- Delhi, Chennai sea port) are permitting the import of Plastics waste from
Middle-East, USA and Europe in baled and foam, loose ( Solid Plastics waste in
foam of Film, PET Bottle scrap, etc.). In Kanlda SEZ and Falta SEZ and some
EOU also have plastics waste processing industries that got license in free trade
zone in 1997-1998. Turning free trade zone into SEZ scheme they continue to
import with same license. In 2013 September SEZ Board introduced new notification
for export 40% for first 2 year (up to Sept-2015) and after that all Industries
must export 80% for next 2 year (up to Sept-2018) and than 100% exports in last
5 year out of import plastics waste.
A total of 28 units
in Kandla SEZ and Falta SEZ are not exporting out of country. They sell in domestic
Indian market after paying Customs Duty and achieving NFEP (net foreign earning
as per SEZ Rule). This procedure of maintaining SEZ unit for last 13 year is wrong
as they not follow SEZ rule for physical exports out of India.
In the aftermath
of new Hazardous Waste Management Rule, 2016 these SEZ units are importing
waste/scrap. It implies that they continue to import, process and
sell in India using the loophole in SEZ rule. The websites like www.zauba.com and other
related sites indicate that PET Bottle Scrap and other waste is still being cleared
from Mundra and Other sea ports after 4th April, 2016.
I submit that Ministries
of Finance and Commerce appear to be in dark about the new Hazardous Waste Management
Rule, 2016 as a consequence of which Customs and other related agencies are not
stopping illegal traffic of plastic waste which is prohibited for import.
According to
Supreme Court of India, “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.”
The new rules
titled "Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management &Transboundary
Movement) Rules, 2016". It is noteworthy that the final text of Rules
which has been announced through PIB has neither been put in public domain nor
has it been uploaded on the website of the Ministry.
In order to
comprehend issues at stake it is important to peruse the new Rules defines
“import”, which means "bringing into India from a place outside
India" and “importer” which means "an occupier or any person who
imports hazardous and other waste".
As per the new Rules,
“transboundary movement” means any movement of hazardous or other wastes form
an area under the jurisdiction of one country to or through an area under the
jurisdiction of another country or to or through an area not under the jurisdiction
of any country, provided that at least two countries are involved in the
movement.
It reveals that
"transboundary movement" of hazardous has become part of ministry's
sound environmental management approach. This term was introduced in 2008 apparently
under the influence of hazardous waste traders when the pre-existing Hazardous
Waste Rules were amended. This term has been lifted from UN’s Basel Convention
on Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal. The key
objectives of the Basel Convention are: “to minimize the generation of
hazardous wastes in terms of quantity and hazardousness; to dispose of them as
close to the source of generation as possible; to reduce the transboundry
movement of hazardous wastes.” It is quite evident that the New Rules are
contrary to the objective of the UN Convention to which India is a party. The
2016 Rules encourages disposal of waste farther away from the source of
generation. It promotes transboundary movement of hazardous wastes.
The Convention
was made part of its order by Supreme Court of India 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. The Court took cognizance of violation of
Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Chapter III of
the Rules deals with "import and export of hazardous and other wastes".
Clause 11 of the Rules provides that "The Ministry of Environment, Forest
and Climate Change shall be the nodal Ministry to deal with the transboundary
movement of the hazardous wastes in accordance with the provisions of these
rules." Clause 12 (2) reads: "The import of hazardous and other
wastes form any country shall be permitted only for the recycling or recovery
or reuse."
Such permission
for import of hazardous waste for "recycling or recovery or reuse" is
an attempt to define waste as non-waste. This is an act designed to re-define
end-of-life product as non-waste. It is akin to defining waste as non-new
good. It is an exercise in linguistic corruption. This has apparently
been done to pander to the interests of international and national hazardous
waste traders.
Clause 13 (1)
reads: The import and export of the hazardous and other wastes specified
in Schedule III, shall be regulated in accordance with the conditions laid down
in the said Schedule.
This is an
admission that trade in hazardous waste will happen in a business as usual
manner.
Clause 13 (2)
reads: " Subject to the provisions contained in sub-rule (1),-(i) the
import or export of the hazardous wastes specified in Part A of Schedule III
shall require Prior Informed Consent of the country form where it is imported
or exported to, and shall require the license from the Directorate General of
Foreign Trade and the prior written permission of the Central Government. (ii)
the import of other wastes specified in Part B of Schedule III shall not
require prior written permission of the Central Government and Prior Informed
Consent of the country from where it is imported; (iii) the import and export
of the hazardous wastes and other wastes not specified in Part A or Part B,
respectively of Schedule III but having the hazardous characteristic outlined
in Part C of the said Schedule shall require prior written permission of the
Central Government before it is imported or exported from India, as the case
may be."
It is apparent
from above provision that Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT), Ministry
of Commerce has made Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change
subservient to commercial interest. Thus, it has subordinated the environmental
health interest of the country.
Clause 13 (3)
reads: "The import of hazardous and other wastes shall be limited to
one-third of the total annual processing capacity of the unit, as specified in
the authorisation."
This is also an
admission of support for import of hazardous and other wastes.
Clause 15 of
the Rules deals with Procedure for import of hazardous wastes and other wastes.
It reads: "Actual users for recycling or reprocessing may import into the
country other wastes listed in Part B of Schedule III (having no asterisk/s
‘*’) if such user is authorised by the State Pollution control Board, has the
Directorate General of Foreign Trade license, wherever applicable and the
relevant documents have been verified by the Customs authorities:
Provided that
the documentation requirement for specific kind of waste shall be specified by
the Ministry of Environment, Forest and climate Change from time to time."
I submit that
unless all the waste that is generated in the country has been treated and
disposed of in an environmentally sound manner how can hazardous waste import
be permitted. How can the central government offer its non-existent services
and infrastructure to other countries to help them 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? In name of demonstrating
“Ease of Doing Business” and Make India India cannot be turned into a land of
landfills for foreign hazardous wastes.
Other
provisions of Clause 15 of the new Rule make it clear that the government is
promoting trade in hazardous waste in a business as usual manner.
The relevant
provisions reads: "The Port or Customs authorities shall, in case of
import of other wastes as specified in Part B of Schedule III, ensure that
shipment is also accompanied by Movement Document in Form 7 and pre shipment
inspection certificate issued by the inspection agency certified by the
exporting country or the inspection and certification agency approved by the
Directorate General of Foreign Trade."
It reads:
"The importer of the hazardous waste and other wastes shall maintain
records of the hazardous and other waste imported by him in Form 8 and the
record so maintained shall be available for inspection."
It also
provides "The importer shall also inform the concerned State Pollution
Control Board and the Central Pollution Control Board, the date and time of the
arrival of the consignment of the hazardous and other waste ten days in
advance."
These
provisions under Chapter III and the role of Directorate General of Foreign
Trade (DGFT), Ministry of Commerce reveals that the Rules continue to promote
trade in hazardous wastes. These Rules allow Indian to remain a dumping ground
of hazardous wastes.
The Rules stated that it will not be applicable to
"wastes arising out of the operation form ships beyond five kilometers of
the relevant baseline as covered under the provisions of the Merchant Shipping
Act, 1958 (44 of 1958) and the rules made thereunder." The Rules should
have dealt with hazardous substances laden end-of-life ships as part of
hazardous wastes which is covered under UN’s Basel Convention on Transboundary
Movement of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal and accepted by Supreme Court
of India as part of Right to Life. It is noteworthy that Basel Convention is
related to the control of Trans-boundary movements of hazardous waste and their
disposal. The ships destined for ship-breaking operations are "hazardous
wastes" under the Convention.
I submit that in
September 2007, the Ministry of Environment proposed an amendment to the
Hazardous Wastes (Management & Handling) Rules; after amendment it would
read "Hazardous Materials (Management, Handling and Transboundary
Movement) Rules. The proposed rules had the effect of exempting transit
countries from obtaining prior informed consent for all shipments of hazardous
waste to India. The proposal also stated that as long as a material contains
less than 60 per cent contamination by a hazardous constituent, then it is safe
for our ecology. Waste asbestos embedded in the structure of the scrap material
was not banned.
Such motivated
attempt at redefinition attracted widespread criticism from environment, public
health groups and even the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII). It was a
gross act done at the behest of hazardous waste traders. Two members of Supreme
Court's own monitoring committee on hazardous wastes also raised objections. In
a study, ASSOCHAM recommended ban on trade in hazardous wastes.
The question
which merits consideration in the light of the 2016 Rules is: Are hazardous
wastes and hazardous materials and recyclable materials synonymous?
The 2007 draft
Rules had redefined "hazardous waste" as "hazardous
material". It introduced a completely new system of classifying items,
contrary to the definition provided by the Supreme Court and UN's Basel
Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Waste, to
which India is a party. The 2016 Rules follows the flawed path of the draft
2007 Rules.
The Basel
Convention gives a 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”. The Supreme Court order of October 2003
had already observed that although Basel Convention has banned import of 76
items, India had only banned 29 items under the Hazardous Wastes (Management
and Handling) Rules, 1989. It had 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.
I submit that instead,
the amendment proposed by the Ministry leaves room for import of hazardous
waste. If it gets notified in the Gazette of India, it will imply that any
hazardous waste can be freely imported if it simply states that it meant for
recycling, reuse and recovery.
The new Rules
made public for creation 2016 Rules defines “disposal” as “any operation which
does not lead to recycling, recovery or reuse and includes physico chemical,
biological treatment, incineration and disposal in secured landfill.” It is
noteworthy that it will have us believe that “recycling, recovery or reuse” is
disposal.
A careful
perusal of the Rules shows that the Rules are being under the tremendous
influence of Ministry of Commerce. The design of the hazardous waste management
rules is part of the process of re-engineering provisions of the Environment
Protection Act and Rules therein in keeping with the recommendations made by
the Govindarajan Committee on Investment Reforms and are admittedly “in line
with this Government’s priority for Ease of Doing Business and Make in India”.
In such a scenario, environmental health concerns have taken a back
seat.
It must be
recalled that the Ministry of Commerce abandoned its decision to have a
registration scheme for overseas suppliers of scrap as applicable in China. As
per the EXIM Policy 2002-2007, import of second hand goods is restricted and
can be imported only with the permission of the Directorate General of Foreign
Trade (DGFT). The DGFT had announced a plan in March 2006 to introduce a
registration system covering imports of unshredded ferrous and non-ferrous
scrap. This was proposed in the wake of explosions and loss of life linked to
the presence of munitions in consignments arriving at Indian ports. Further,
DGFT had announced a plan similar to that implemented in China which would have
required applicants to demonstrate their financial and business standing.
But with the
proposed amendment from Ministry of Environment, hazardous waste gets
classified as recyclable material, and it would fall in the category of second
hand materials. The DGFT will be able to allow even hazardous waste since as
per the new notification a waste would be deemed as non-waste. In this way
toxic waste will reincarnate itself as a reusable or recyclable or recoverable
product.
When the DGFT
had proposed its registration scheme covering imports of scrap, the US
Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries and the Indian scrap steel industry had
objected. They argued that exporters should make sure we don’t repeat the
mistakes of the past. We should self-regulate to ensure no explosive materials
are shipped.”
The DGFT
appears to have caved in to their pressure and instead suggested
self-regulation to the industry, according to information received from the
Bureau of International Recycling (BIR) meeting in Warsaw, Poland during 22-23
October 2007. BIR is the international trade federation representing the
world’s recycling industry, covering in particular ferrous and non-ferrous
metals etc.
The position of
the Ministry of Commerce (the DGFT) is, in effect, 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 an 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.
In effect, the
proposed rules are a formal announcement of globalisation of the toxic chemical
crisis. Exporters in 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.
I submit that self-regulation
is no alternative to corporate accountability. The solutions are waste
management through clean production and reduction in the use of toxics
chemicals through life cycle assessment, precautionary principle, eco-design,
extended producers' responsibility and the polluter-pays principle. All of this
is sought to be undermined by the proposed rules. 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". The New Hazardous Waste Rules does not
factor in such concerns.
I submit that National
Environment Policy refers to a range of goals that seem well-intended. They
include 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.
In drafting the
2016 Rules, all of this has been ignored. It is germane to note that NEP
mentions, "the Cabinet or a nominated Committee of the Cabinet may be
requested to review the implementation of the National Environment
Policy". In line with that, the government's new Hazardous Waste Rules
should be revisited. Central Government should recollect that being a signatory
to Basel Convention which it signed on 15th March, 1990 and ratified
on 24th June, 1992, it is under the obligation to act as the letter
and spirit of the Convention and the order of the Supreme Court of India. The
order was reiterated on 30th July, 2012.
I submit that the
Hazardous Waste Rules, 2016 should be revised to reflect 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. The main principles of this UN treaty
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.
Government of India’s current position is contrary to these principles and
stands in manifest contrast with its position in 1992.
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 amendment was to enter into force following ratification by 62
parties as per Article 17 (5) of the Convention.
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 70 parties have
ratified it because Basel Convention Secretariat appears to have surrendered
under the influence of powerful hazardous waste traders. The parent treaty, the
Basel Convention has been ratified by 183 countries. Government should pay heed
to the fact that the European Union has implemented the Basel Ban in its Waste
Shipment Regulation. It has made it legally binding on all EU member states.
Norway and Switzerland too have implemented the Basel Ban in their legislation.
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 Hazardous waste
Rules have faced continued dilution. These countries and interests never wished
Convention and compliant Rules to come into force.
I submit that as
part of Clean India Mission, Central Government should 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. 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.”
I submit that 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 Indian government
announcing that it was reconsidering its position on the Basel Ban.
I submit that Environment
Ministry should be made to disassociate itself from 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. “The last damage was done at the Bali Conference on the
Basel Convention when the then Minister of State for Environment Shri Namo
Narain Meena said that we saw hazardous waste as recyclable material under the
influence of Commerce Ministry, which has adopted the policy of free trade in
hazardous waste unmindful its environmental and human cost.
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. 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.
In view of the
above facts, Government should not delay its ratification of Ban Amendment
anymore. The review of new Hazardous Waste Rules provides a chance to recover
the lost ground and re-adopt its 1992 position and ask the rich countries to
“keep your own waste” for global common good.
Thanking You
Yours
faithfully
Dr Gopal
Krishna
Director
ToxicsWatch
Alliance (TWA)
Mb: 08227816731, 09818089660
E-mail-1715krishna@gmail.com
Web: www.toxicswatch.org