Last week, Livelaw carried Part I of the
interview with Gopal Krishna, environmental activist and scholar on his
inspirations, and ongoing concerns.
In Part II, he answers specific questions
concerning his activism, and interactions with the Central Government, with
regard to his campaigns against asbestos and ship-breaking industries.
Q: After five years of struggle, Bihar
Pollution Control Board has cancelled permission to all the seven asbestos
plants including the ones in Bhojpur. Please tell us about the salient aspects
of this struggle, and how you succeeded in your campaign in Bihar.
A: The struggle in Bihar is part of the
national and global struggle against trade, manufacture and use of killer
fibres of asbestos. Initially, when they bought the land they did not disclose
that it was for asbestos-based factories. After more than five years of
villagers’ struggle, the West Bengal- based Balmukund company in
Chainpur-Bishunpur, Marwan block in Muzaffarpur district of Bihar was closed.
It had approval for three lakh ton per annum capacity. Bitter resistance
against the proposal of West Bengal-based Utkal Asbestos Limited (UAL) at
Chaksultan Rampur Rajdhari near Panapur in Kanhauli Dhanraj Panchayat in Goraul
block in Vaishali made the Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar intervene after a
delegation of leaders from Left parties and anti-asbestos activists met him in
this regard.
I worked with Khet Bachao Jeevan Bachao Jan
Sangarsh Committee of Muzaffarpur and Vaishali to resist the setting up of such
hazardous plants and represented it in negotiations. Bihar State Pollution
Control Board (BSPCB) cancelled the No Objection Certificate given to the UAL
company. It had approval for 2.5 lakh ton per annum capacity. Villagers
outwitted the corporate media which has been reluctant to publish anti-asbestos
stories by wall writing in the villages adjoining the plant demanding halting
of the construction of the plant. While the successful protests were underway
in Muzaffarpur and Vaishali three asbestos plants got set up in Bhojpur
district.
The Bhojpur media was not reporting on the
anti-asbestos struggle in other districts. In Bhojpur’s Giddha village in Koilwar
block, the 100,000 MT Capacity Asbestos Fibre Cement Corrugated Sheet, Flat
Sheet, Accessories and Light Weight Fly Ash Block Plant acquired 15 acres. The
plant site is located adjacent to Ara-Koilwar road. Due to our incessant
efforts along with Parwaywarn Bachao Jeewan Bachao Sangharsh Samiti and
Parywawarn Swasthya Suraksha Samiti pointing out non-compliance with
environmental laws, BSPCB has revoked its emission-consent order and discharge
consent order which were valid till 31st March, 2018.
The Chairman of the BSPCB has ordered the
company in question, Tamil Nadu-based Nibhi Industries Pvt Ltd. to close its
industrial unit with immediate effect, failing which it warned that complaints
would be filed under section 44 of the Water (Prevention and Control of
Pollution) Act, 1974 and 37 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution)
Act, 1981.
This land allotment was considered to be part
of the scam that led to an inquiry into allotments by Bihar Industrial Area
Development Authority (BIADA). A 120,000 MT/Annum capacity Asbestos Cement
Sheet Plant and a 200,000 MT/Annum capacity Asbestos Grinding Plant was set up
in Bihiya block of Bhojpur by Tamil Nadu-based Ramco Industries Ltd. It is
noteworthy that only 120,000 MT/Annum capacity Asbestos Cement Sheet Plant had
the clearance from the BSPCB. The second unit with bigger capacity functions
without any clearance. The project was allotted 20 acres by the state
government on lease for 90 years. This patch of land too had found its mention
in the BIADA land scam. The villagers complained against the hazardous
factories in their proximity that manufacture chrysotile white asbestos-cement
products.
The hazardous asbestos waste has been dumped
indiscriminately in the adjoining villages and the agricultural fields. One
worker died of asbestos-related disease in the Ramco factory. The company has
given a compensation of Rs 5,000 mentioning his status as a cook and not as a
worker. The struggle led to stoppage of proposed asbestos-based plant of 1.25
lakh tons per annum (TPA) capacity in Pandaul, Sagarpur, Hati tehsil in
Madhubani.
The proposal of 2.5 lakh TPA capacity plant
by Hyderabad Industries Ltd in Kumar Bagh, Bettiah, West Champaran has also
been stopped. The company has constructed a boundary wall amidst rich
agricultural field and faces court cases from villagers. Our struggle was
confronted with false cases in courts, police action and hooliganism by
anti-social elements. The asbestos-based companies are not maintaining the
health record of every worker, not conducting Membrane Filter test to detect
asbestos fibre and not covering every worker with a health insurance. They do
not have qualified occupational health doctors to undertake these tasks. These
companies should be asked to provide a list of workers employed in the factory,
their health records and the qualification of the doctor assigned to undertake
their health checkup.
Not only in Bihar, villagers protested
against the proposed hazardous asbestos cement roofing factory at
Naagaon-Lebidi villages, Sohella block, Bargarh district, Odisha and succeeded
in stopping it. The company M/s Viswakarma Roofings Ltd. intended to establish
150,000 tonnes per annum of asbestos cement sheets manufacturing project. In
Sambalpur’s Parmanpur village in Odisha too villagers are agitating against the
hazardous asbestos-based factory of Visaka Asbestos Industries. I have been
associated with these struggles.
More than 50 countries have banned
production, use, manufacture and trade of the hazardous mineral fibre, asbestos.
All the 27 countries of European Union have banned it. There is a logical
compulsion based on scientific and medical evidence including resolutions of
WHO and ILO to ban asbestos of all kinds including white asbestos to save life
and health of Indians.
In India, asbestos-mining is technically
banned and trade in asbestos waste (dust and fibres) is also banned but the
process of banning trade, manufacturing and use of white asbestos is held up
because of the corporate influence of the asbestos companies over ruling
parties. The promotion of asbestos continues despite the fact that alternatives
to asbestos exist. There appears to be a deeper connection between
asbestos-producing companies from countries like Russia and the Asbestos Cement
Products Manufacturers Association (ACPMA) which seems to be overwhelming
decision making by the central government despite its own official wisdom.
The Union Environment Ministry’s Vision
Statement on Environment and Human Health reads, “Alternatives to asbestos may
be used to the extent possible and use of asbestos may be phased out”, but the
Experts Appraisal Committee of this very ministry continues to give
environmental clearance to such hazardous industries. This is notwithstanding
the fact that “The Government of India is considering the ban on use of
chrysotile asbestos in India to protect workers and the general population
against primary and secondary exposure,” as announced in a concept paper by the
Ministry of Labour in September 2011.
Both these documents are available on
government’s website but the struggle to make Indians safe from deadly exposure
of asbestos fibres continues in the face of misinformation campaign of the
killer industry. Amidst the ongoing struggle, the Union Budget 2011-12 made an
implied critical reference to asbestos by including it under Health Ministry’s
Rashtriya Swasthya Birna Yojana to cover the ‘unorganised sector workers in
hazardous mining and associated industries like asbestos etc’. But the current
central government’s apathy towards victims of primary and secondary exposure
to asbestos shows that in the conflict between naked lust for profit and public
health, it is choosing to be complicit with the former. The legacy of
callousness towards victims of asbestos-related diseases refuses to learn
lessons from the epidemic of such diseases world over due to past usage of
asbestos. Asbestos-related diseases have a long incubation period ranging from
5-25 years. Now that Bihar is all set to be free of asbestos-based factories,
one is hopeful that health being a State subject, Bihar will take the lead by
banning asbestos procurement and use in the state to pave the way for other
state governments and the central government to follow. Responding to
anti-asbestos struggle, the Bihar Chief Minister, Nitish Kumar has claimed that
he would puncture this industry, but the task of decontaminating asbestos-laden
factory sites, buildings, preparing a register of victims of asbestos-related
diseases, creating an inventory of asbestos-based products and announcing a
compensation fund for victims remains to be undertaken. I am pursuing a case in
NHRC since 2011 seeking closure of asbestos factories in India. All the states
and concerned central ministries besides the ACPMA have filed their replies.
The case is at a final stage. Visaka
Industries, a member of ACPMA, filed a civil and criminal defamation case
against Google for an article I wrote on the Google blog about the company’s
asbestos plant in Raibareli, Uttar Pradesh. The case is pending in the Supreme
Court. As a consequence of this case, Google has taken my site
www.asbestosfreeindia.org off public view.
Q: You have also been
interacting with the Central Government ministries dealing with ship-breaking.
Is the current Government more concerned and responsive than its predecessors,
to your representations?
A: Shipbreakers are puppets in
the hands of global ship owners from Europe, USA and Japan. These foreign
shipowners have colonised Alang Beach (Gujarat) and are now eyeing Mundra. They
are transferring their hazardous waste. Our Government is allowing it because
it believes in free trade in hazardous waste as well. The real culprit is the
Union ministry of commerce & industry. The shipping and environment
ministries are the weakest ministries. The gullibility of shipping ministry is
liked by foreign ship owners. Without media noticing it, the subject of
ship-breaking industry has been transferred from steel ministry, and entrusted
with the shipping ministry, after the NDA Government came to power. It may be
noted that Steel Ministry has been the focal point for the ship-breaking
activity.
The proposal of shifting ship-breaking to
shipping ministry was inserted as part of Draft Ship-breaking Code which was
created by Inter-Ministerial Committee (IMC) (set up by SC order of October 14,
2003 in hazardous waste case) hosted by Steel Ministry. I had met E K Bharat
Bhushan, the Additional Secretary, Steel Ministry who headed the Committee, at
his invitation. I tried to persuade him to stop the shifting of the subject to
Shipping Ministry but he said it has already been decided by the PMO. T
The Ship-breaking Code 2013 which has come
into force in compliance with the Supreme 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 ship-breaking is
admittedly an exercise in secondary steel production. An affidavit was filed in
the Supreme Court on July 16, 2012 by 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
ship-breaking. The affidavit was filed in the Writ Petition (Civil) No.657 of
1995. It is in this very petition that the Court gave the direction for
creation of a Ship-breaking 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.
I have demanded a parliamentary inquiry into
the circumstances which led to this decision in a letter dated January 26, 2016
sent to Dr Ashwani Kumar, Chairman, Parliamentary Standing Committee (PSC) on
Science & Technology, Environment & Forests because issues of
ship-breaking are also linked to issues of maritime and national security as
has been recorded repeatedly in the minutes of the Inter-Ministerial Committee
(IMC) on Ship-breaking. Unlike the Government of USA which has maintained a
long-standing policy that requires its own end-of-life ships to be disposed of
and treated domestically and off their beaches, Government of India has been
offering its ecologically-cherished and biodiversity-rich beaches for
end-of-life ships to rich countries.
The IMC on Ship-breaking under Steel Ministry
which had rich experience since its creation in 2004 in compliance with the
order of Supreme Court dated October 14, 2003, has been replaced with Ship
Breaking Scrap Committee, Ministry of Shipping, without intimating the Court
about it. The Code has ignored several recommendations for remedial measures.
For the record, the Hong Kong Convention, 2009 was adopted for safe and
environmentally sound recycling of ships. But it is an attempt to write the
obituary of hard- won Basel Convention on Transboundary Movement on Hazardous
Wastes, which has been in force since 1992. (The Basel Convention, is an
international treaty that was designed to reduce the movements of hazardous
waste between nations, and specifically to prevent transfer of hazardous waste
from developed to Less Developed Countries). The foreign countries like the USA
and Japan have remained consistent enemies of Basel Convention. But sadly even
European countries are taking a regressive path now. These foreign countries
cherish their own sea beaches and have managed to get license to poison Alang
beach, a biodiversity hot spot forever.
There is a compelling logic for India to
strictly adhere to Basel Convention that covers issues from 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 (polychlorinated biphenyl) and asbestos, once removed
from the ship is not to 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.
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. 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.
International shipping industry is so
powerful an industry that it succeeded in getting the subject of ship-breaking
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 is a
regressive step with respect to international governance, protection of human
rights and the environment.
Keeping gnawing concerns about the impact on
the environmental health of the hazardous industrial activity in question makes
ship breaking in India fall under a WIMBY (Welcome Into My Backyard) logic
wherein waste is welcomed or a conducive climate is created for the application
of Lawrence Summers’ Principle: it makes impeccable economic logic to transfer
hazardous industries to developing countries.
If Central Government is concerned about the
supreme national interest, it should refuse permission for the proposed ship
breaking facility. India can send a categorical message to the foreign ship
owning countries that they should keep their own waste and ‘recycle’ them ad
infinitum instead of treating Indian waters as their landfills.
The hazardous waste trade and dumping of old
ships in myriad disguises in Indian waters is exposing vulnerability of India’s
maritime and environmental security. This has been acknowledged by Naval
Intelligence and other related agencies in the past but it seems political
patronage has led to inaction in this regard.
Source: live
law. 14 August 2016
No comments:
Post a Comment