Subject: Ban hazardous waste
trade and entry of dead ships; comply with Basel Convention &
re-examine new hazardous waste rules
From: Gopal Krishna Sat, 26 May '12 10:56a
To: csoffice and others
To
Shri Saurabh Chandra
Secretary
Union Ministry of Commerce & Industry
Government of India
New Delhi
Shri Pradeep K Sinha
Secretary
Union Minister of Shipping
Government of India
New Delhi
Dr.T Chatterjee, Secretary
Union Ministry of Environment & Forests
Government of India
New Delhi
Subject-
Ban hazardous waste trade and entry of dead ships; comply with Basel
Convention, re-examine subordinate legislations for hazardous waste
management & trade
Sir,
This is with reference to the subordinate legislations
for Hazardous Waste Management and Trade under Environment Protection
Act, 1986, reply of Union Minister of Environment and Forests on May 21,
2012, reply of Union Minister of Shipping dated May 7, 2012 in the
Parliament and Supreme Court’s order dated October 14, 2003 and February
29, 2012.
I submit that the Union Minister of Environment and Forests said,
"Import of such (hazardous) wastes for disposal is not permitted. Import
is permitted only for recycling or recovery or reuse with the
permission of the Ministry of Environment and Forests and/or Directorate
General of Foreign Trade", Union Commerce Ministry.
I submit that the Minister’s reply that defines hazardous waste as
recyclable material appears to be an exercise in sophistry. Her reply
and other relevant documents revealing the true nature of the goings on
are attached.
I submit that the Union Government has been indicted by the
Parliamentary Standing Committee on Subordinate Legislation in its
report “Non-implementation of oft-repeated recommendations of Committee
on Subordinate Legislation, Lok Sabha by various Ministries” dated
December 16, 2011. It appears that even Union Ministry of Environment
& Forests, Union Ministry of Commerce & Industry and Union
Ministry of Shipping are following the same path in the matter of
subordinate legislations for Hazardous Waste Management and Trade under
Environment Protection Act, 1986.
I submit that it is clear from the existing Hazardous Waste Rules
(including the amendments till date) that it promotes trade in hazardous
waste unmindful of the National Environment Policy that acknowledges
how "Environmental factors are estimated as being responsible in some
cases for nearly 20 percent of the burden of disease in India".
I wish to draw your attention towards the first three paragraphs of
Supreme Court’s landmark order dated October 14, 2003. It reads:
‘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 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 transboundary movement of
hazardous wastes.”
2. 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 petitioner approached this Court under Article 32
complaining of violation of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of
India.
3. The petitioner has, inter alia, relied upon the Basel
Convention. The Basel Convention was signed by India on 15th March, 1990
and ratified on 24th June, 1992.’
I submit that in a order dated
February 29, 2012, Supreme Court held that the application which “has
been filed by Dr. Claude Alvares, member of the Supreme Court Monitoring
Committee, praying for an injunction to restrain Union of India from
finalising of a Notification on hazardous wastes dated 28th September,
2007, has been rendered infructuous on account of the publication of the
Hazardous Wastes (Management, Handling & Transboundary Movement)
Rules, 2008. It appears that the prayer of Dr.Claude Alvares, a member
of the SCMC did not get relief due to limitations of jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has used word ‘infructuous’ for SCMC’s
application. In effect, Supreme Court was accepted the Rules as a fait
accompli. Its dictionary meaning is ‘unfruitful’ and ‘fruitless’. I
submit that these Rules will lead to the growth of bad and sour fruits
that the present and future generation of Indians will be compelled to
eat when hazardous waste and chemicals enter our food chain.
I also wish to draw your attention to the address of Shri M.N.
Krishnamani, President, Supreme Court Bar Association on Law Day wherein
he stated that “Most of the legal matters become infructuous after long
period of pendency.” I submit that it is not a legal matter alone. The
new Hazardous Waste Rules are a matter of forcing the present and future
generation to accept the fate of living with contaminated blood in our
veins and arteries.
I take this opportunity to appeal to both the ministries of
Environment and Commerce to re-examine the Notification on hazardous
wastes dated 28th September, 2007, which has been published as Hazardous
Wastes(Management, Handling & Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008,
subsequent four amendments in the Rules, proposed fifth amendment in the
Rules and the ‘Procedure for grant of approval for utilization of
hazardous wastes as a supplementary resource or for energy recovery, or
after processing under Rule 11 of Hazardous Wastes Management Rules,
2008’. The original Notification is attached.
I submit that you have the opportunity to change this situation. As
senior officers whatever you do, others after you will try to do the
same; whatever standards you setup, they try to set up the same
standard.
I submit that both the current members of SCMC who were also the members
of Supreme Court’s High Powered Committee on Hazardous Wastes
Management headed by Prof M G K Menon namely,Dr.Claude Alvares and
Dr.D.B. Boralkar should be invited by you to hear their testimonies.
Prof. Menon should also be invited besides Shri Sanjay Parikh, lawyer
Supreme Court who has been pursuing the case selflessly since 1995. They
can reveal the plot being set by hazardous waste traders.
I submit that in our country all the municipal waste to energy
plants have failed. The proposal of the hazardous waste to energy
projects through the procedure for grant of approval for utilization of
hazardous wastes as a supplementary resource or for energy recovery, or
after processing under Rule 11 of Hazardous Wastes Management Rules,
2008 has not been examined as far as their adverse environmental health
impact is concerned. This is unfolding under illegitimate acts of
subordinate legislation.
I submit that the intent of the Commerce and Environment Ministry
stood exposed when it proposed an amendment to the Hazardous Wastes
(Management & Handling) Rules; after amendment it was to read
"Hazardous Materials (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement)
Rules, 2007. The proposed rules was to have 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 is not banned. This
sleight of hand at redefinition attracted widespread criticism from
environment and public health groups. Startled by the proposed Rules
environment and public health researchers and activists had charged that
it has been done at the behest of hazardous waste traders. Even the
Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) had expressed its concerns in
November 2007. The SCMC on Hazardous Wastes had also objected. As a
consequence the word "wastes" was not replaced with "materials" but
"Transboundary Movement" remains. In effect, the original Rules were
mutilated and the process of mutilating it further is underway.
I submit that through a jugglery of words in the subordinate
legislations on hazardous wastes, Union Ministries of Commerce and
Environment have paved the way for officially opening floodgates for the
dumping of world's hazardous waste in the name of recycling. This has
unleashed unprecedented havoc on India's environment and health of its
citizens. These subordinate legislations on hazardous wastes seeks to
undo established, science-based definitions of waste and consider waste
that is being recycled somehow less hazardous than the waste being
landfilled in order to curry favor with hazardous scrapping industries.
I submit that through a not-so-subtle mangling of international
definitions for "waste", "disposal" and "safe recycling" both these
ministries have designed a veritable global waste funnel that will
ensure that the world's waste will surge to our shores. It indeed quite
sad in the name of recycling, hazardous waste trade is being legalized.
I submit that the Hazardous Wastes (Management, Handling and
Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008 has completely altered definitions
which is contrary to the international rules of the Basel Convention,
which India is obliged to uphold.
I submit that it is illegal for both the ministries to pretend to
implement the Basel Convention but utilise definitions that outwit the
intent of the treaty.
I submit following examples of departures from the Basel Convention and international law:
• India has decided that transit states do not have to receive
prior informed consent for all shipments of hazardous waste.
•
India has decided that dumping in rivers, oceans, and lakes, or burning
waste somehow does not constitute disposal and therefore that which is
dumped in aquatic environments, or burned, is not waste.
• The international definition of "environmentally sound
management" has been ignored in favor of a new definition of "safe for
recycling" that states that as long as a material contains less than 60%
contamination by a hazardous constituent, then it’s safe!
• India has exempted bio-medical wastes and municipal wastes from this law yet these are meant to be covered under Basel.
• India appears to allow dioxin imports for disposal but not for recycling
• Waste asbestos imports are banned unless they are contaminating other substances (e.g. old ships).
• Fails to implement the Ban Amendment forbidding all imports of hazardous waste from developed countries.
• Fails to recognize it is illegal to trade in waste with non-Parties of the Basel Convention such as the United States.
• While since 1982 over 5924 dead and hazardous wastes laden ships
have been dumped in Indian waters, the Hazardous Wastes Management
(Handling & Transboundary Movement Rules, 2008) provides that the
Rules will not apply to “wastes arising out of the operation from ships
beyond five kilometers of the relevant baseline as covered under the
provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 and rules made there
under”. Subordinate legislations under Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 also
merit re-consideration.
I submit that on May 7, 2012, Shri P. Viswanathan, Member of Parliament
had asked the Union Minister of Shipping about the ban on entry of more
than 25 years old ships which is not registered with Indian Registrar of
Shipping (IRS) in Indian waters. The Hon’ble Minister replied, “There
is no ban on the entry of vessels which are not classed with Indian
Register of Shipping (IRS), provided the vessel is classed with any one
of the twelve other member societies of International Association of
Classification Societies (IACS)”. I wish to submit that of ships which
are more than 25 years old are dead ships as they have reached their end
of life. These hazardous wastes laden ships are being transferred to
Indian waters in the name of ship dismantling at Gujarat’s Alang beach, a
fragile coastal ecosystem. There is a need to initiate steps to ban
entry of such ships especially in the coastal environment as has been
done for Sachana ship breaking yards in Jamnagar, Gujarat
I submit that these subordinate legislations are contrary to our
constitution because the State is under obligation to protect people's
right to health and environment. Instead of an environmental law being
protective of human health and the environment, these subordinate
legislations are trade centric for hazardous waste.
I submit that its significance must be seen in the context of
India-Japan Free Trade Agreement and India-EU Free Trade Agreements
besides Economic Partnership Agreements with other developed countries
who wish to externalize their pollution load following Lawrence Summers
Principle of transferring harm to developing countries. The role of
Special Economic Zones (SEZ) in facilitating it must be examined.
In such a backdrop, I wish to dispute the reply of the Union
Environment Minister. If this reply of Union Minister of Environment and
Forests is read with the *attached* 'Statement of Hazardous Goods Lying
at Ports' given to the Parliament by Union Minister of Shipping, the
true nature of the goings on stands exposed. How is it that waste oil
which is officially admitted as waste oil referred to as hazardous good?
I submit that the Ministry appears to have done its homework to
justify hazardous waste trade in various disguises. Under Rule 23 of
Hazardous Wastes (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Third
Amendment Rules, 2008 refers to the “Responsibilities of Authorities”
which is specified in its Schedule VII that provides the List of
Authorities and Corresponding Duties” wherein it is mentioned that
Directorate-General of Foreign Trade constituted under the Foreign Trade
(Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 has a duty to “Grant License for
import of hazardous wastes”.
It is noteworthy that since 1989 till 2012, there have been several
amendments to the Rules. Interestingly, the new 7 page Draft Hazardous
Wastes (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Fifth Amendment
Rules, 2011 engineers these Rules and inserts a new definition of
waste. It reads: "“(zea) “waste” means materials, that are not products
or by-products, for which the generator has no further use in terms of
his/her own purposes or for production, transformation or consumption,
and of which he/she wants to dispose." Its Explanation1 reads: "Wastes
may be generated during the extraction of raw materials, the processing
of raw materials into intermediates and final products, the consumption
of final products, and through other human activities. Residuals
recycled or reused at the place of generation as a part of process are
excluded." Its Explanation 2 reads: "By-product means a material that is
not solely or separately produced by the production process but gets
produced in the process and is used as such." I hold that the amendments
are being done under undue influence of the global hazardous waste
traders. The new Draft Rule is attached.
I submit that the subordinate legislation with regard to Hazardous
Wastes (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008 are
contrary to the orders issued by the Supreme Court. The order dated
14th October, 2003 endorsed UN’s Basel Convention. The new notification
is in contempt of the Court and violates the spirit of the Basel treaty
by allowing traders to deal with hazardous wastes who are endangering
public and ecological health. It is indeed strange that while the
Environment Ministry admits that there is huge deficit of capacity to
deal with hazardous wastes generated in the country, the new Hazardous
Waste Rules, Amendments and Procedures permit traders to import
hazardous wastes.
I wish to inform you that the Supreme Court Monitoring Committee
(SCMC) on Hazardous Wastes members opines that "Truly, we take three
steps forward and then five steps backward." The attached court’s order
that constituted the SCMC saying “We constitute a Monitoring Committee
comprising of the aforesaid members as also Dr.Claude Alvares, NGO and
Dr.D.B. Boralkar. This Committee shall oversee that the direction of
this Court are implemented timely. It would also oversee that the
aspects to which the Ministry has agreed are implemented in letter and
spirit and without any laxity or delay in the matter. It would be open
to the Monitoring Committee to co-opt a representative of the State
Government or State Pollution Control Boards or any other person or
authority as the Committee may deem fit and proper. The Monitoring
Committee shall file quarterly reports in this Court.” I submit that
Union Ministry of Environment & Forests has ignored the
recommendations of both the court appointed members.
I submit that as per a 54 page Report of the Committee to Evolve
Road Map on Management of Wastes in India, Union Ministry of Environment
& Forests there are about 36,000 hazardous waste generating
industries in India which generate 6.2 million tonnes out of which land
fillable hazardous waste is about 2.7 million tonnes (44%), incinerable
hazardous waste is about 0.4 million tonnes (7 %) and recyclable
hazardous waste is about 3.1 million tonnes (49 %). Indiscriminate and
unscientific disposal of wastes in the past has resulted in several
sites in the country to become environmentally degraded. Isn't our own
hazardous waste sufficient?
I submit that "141 hazardous waste dumpsites that have been
primarily identified in 14 States/UTs out of which 88 critically
polluted locations are currently identified" which in effect means that
there is no capacity to deal with these wastes. If they are unable to
deal with the domestically generated waste in a scientific and
environmentally sound manner and are compelled to dump them, how can
Environment Ministry's reply to the Parliament that implies that India
has the capacity to deal with the imported hazardous waste for any
purpose be deemed convincing.
I submit that it has come to light from the Minister's statement
that a co-ordination committee comprising of representatives from the
Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Commerce and Industries, the
Ministry of Shipping, Central Pollution Control Board and select State
Pollution Control Boards has been constituted that claims to be "working
to sensitize the Customs authorities regarding enforcement of these
Rules in order to check illegal import of hazardous waste into the
country." It appears that through linguistic manipulation waste is been
re-defined as non-waste. What has become evident is that Indian
regulations offer least resistance to dumping of hazardous wastes. In
fact it welcomes hazardous wastes trade in the name of "recycling or
recovery or reuse" of hazardous wastes. How can Customs authorities be
expected to be sensitive when Ministries of Commerce and Industries,
Shipping and Environment & Forests themselves are not sensitive.
I submit that as a consequence hazardous waste importers are
bringing in lakhs of tonnes of hazardous waste into India without facing
any legal hurdle. Earlier, Environment Ministry’s Hazardous Waste Rules
prohibited import of waste oil, ash and residues from incineration of
municipal solid waste, plastic, and unsorted waste scrap. But the same
was allowed under the Open General License of the export-import policy
of the Commerce Ministry. This led to import of ash and residues from
incineration of municipal solid waste has increased by about 130 times
during 2006-2009. The import of plastic waste increased by seven times
during this period. Countries such as Netherlands, Germany and the
United Kingdom have realized that Indian regulations are hazardous waste
friendly. There was a 48 per cent increase in hazardous waste trade
import during 2006-2009.
I submit that acknowledging such a situation, the then Union
Environment and Forest Minister had written a letter to Union Commerce
Minister in April 2010 urging alignment of Hazardous Waste Rules and
Export-Import policy to reduce “scope of confusion” at implementation
level. “I suggest that a joint group of the two ministries be set up to
resolve the issue”, the minister said and had further added that some
export-oriented units especially those in the Special Economic Zones
(SEZ) were importing hazardous waste without seeking approval from
either the Ministries. They were also operating without a mandatory
“consent to operate” under environmental laws aimed at protecting the
environment. The minister had said, “An impression also seems to have
gained ground that such units are exempt from the provisions of
environment regulations can import hazardous wastes without any
permission. These impressions need to be corrected”. What has happened
since then is that instead of aligning and factoring in environmental
concerns in the hazardous waste trade, blind profiteering has taken
precedence over public health concerns. The Hazardous Wastes Rules do
not apply to SEZ. The concerned ministries disclose the names of SEZs
which are importing hazardous wastes.
In view of the above, your immediate intervention alone can
facilitate creation of legitimate legislative competence to regulate
management and trade in hazardous wastes.
I will be happy to share relevant documents and reference materials in this regard.
Thanking You
Yours faithfully
Gopal Krishna
Convener
ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA)
New Delhi-16,
Phone: +91-11-26517814, Fax: +91-11-26517814
Mb- 9818089660
E-mail-
krishna1715@gmail.com,
Web:
toxicswatch.blogpsot.comCc
Shri Anand Sharma, Union Minister of Commerce & Industry
Shri G K Vasan, Union Minister of Shipping
Smt Jayanthi Natrajan, Union Minister of Environment & Forests
Shri Jyotiraditya Madhavrao Scindia, Union Minister of State, Ministry of Commerce & Industry
Chairman & Members, Parliamentary Standing Committee on Science, Technology, Environment & Forests
Smt. Vijay Laxmi Joshi, Additional Secretary , Union Ministry of Commerce & Industry
Ms Meera Mehrishi, Additional Secretary, HSMD, Union Minister of Environment & Forests
Shri Madhusudan Prasad, Additional Secretary, Union Ministry of Commerce & Industry
Shri Rajeev Kher, Additional Secretary, Union Ministry of Commerce & Industry
Ms Anita Agnihotri, Additional Secretary, Union Ministry of Commerce & Industry
Shri Mukesh Bhatnagar, Additional DGFT, Union Ministry of Commerce & Industry
Ms Aditi Das Rout, Director, Union Ministry of Commerce & Industry
Dr. Saroj, Director, HSMD, Union Minister of Environment & Forests
Dr. Manoranjan Hota, Director, HSMD, Union Minister of Environment & Forests
Dr Claude Alvares, Member, Supreme Court Monitoring Committee on Hazardous Wastes
Dr D B Boralkar, Member, Supreme Court Monitoring Committee on Hazardous Wastes
Shri Sanjay Parikh, Lawyer, Supreme Court