To
Shri Ashok Lavasa
Secretary
Ministry of Environment,
Forests and Climate
Change
Paryavaran Bhawan, C.G.O.
Complex, Lodhi Road
New Delhi 110003
Email: hempande@nic.in; sujata@nic.in
Shri A.J.V. Prasad
Joint Secretary (Chemicals)
Department of Chemicals and
Petrochemicals
Ministry of Chemicals and
Fertilizers
Postal address: Room No.
340-C, 'A' Wing, Shastri
Bhawan
New Delhi 110001
Email:
ajv.prasad@nic.in
Permanent Mission
Government of India
E-mail:
mission.india@ties.itu.int
Subject- Unethical & immoral act of inclusion of of Asbestos Cement Products
Manufacturers’ Association (ACPMA) in Indian delegation for UN workshop on
white chrysotile asbestos
Sir,
This
is to draw your urgent and immediate attention towards the upcoming technical
workshop of UN's Rotterdam Convention (RC) on white chrysotile asbestos
scheduled during March 30-31, 2015 and 7th Conference of the Parties (COP7) of
the UN's Rotterdam Convention (RC) in Geneva during May 12-15, 2015 which will
consider inclusion of white chrysotile asbestos in a list of hazardous
chemicals yet again.
I
wish to strongly object and express my outrage at the unethical and immoral act
of inclusion of Mr. Vivek Chandra Rao Sripalle of Asbestos Cement Products
Manufacturers’ Association (ACPMA), India in the Provisional list of
participants at the Technical workshop on chrysotile asbestos in Geneva,
Switzerland in March 2015.
I
was informed by an official on condition of anonymity that officials feel
humiliated when they have to take orders from likes of ACPMA.
I
submit that in a letter to Union Ministry of Environment & Forests (MoEF),
on behalf of ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA), I had exposed how Indian delegation’s
position at the sixth meeting on UN's Rotterdam Convention on the Prior
Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in
International Trade which concluded on May 10, 2013 with regard to asbestos
was/is contrary to Indian laws in practice. My submissions to the Ministry were
responded and clarifications provided, which revealed that the MoEF was misled
by Union Ministry of Chemicals which in turn was misled by Asbestos Cement
Products Manufacturers’ Association (ACPMA). TWA is an applicant in the
National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), New Delhi.
I
submit that ACPMA had overwhelmed and misled the Indian delegation making the
Indian delegation ignore the fact that Asbestos is listed as a hazardous
substance under Part II of Schedule-I of the Manufacture, Storage and import of
Hazardous Chemical Rules, 1989 under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
provides the List of Hazardous and Toxic Chemicals. This list has 429 chemicals.
Asbestos is at the serial no. 28 in the list. This Rule and the list is
available on the website of Union Ministry of Environment & Forests.
I
submit that even then the Indian delegation included asbestos industry
lobbyists like Mr. Vivek Chandra Rao Sripalle, ACPMA.
I
submit that ACPMA’s influence on the delegation’s stance is quite manifest. It
also merits attention as to whether the industry representatives went to this
UN conference on their own expense or government sponsored their visit.
I
submit that ACPMA consists of 20 big firms and 68 manufacturing units, of which
top six players holding 87 per cent of the market share.
I
submit that had ACPMA not overwhelmed the Indian delegation, the Indian
position would have been in keeping with its Inventory of Hazardous
Chemicals Import in India that lists ‘asbestos’ at serial no. 26 as one of
the 180 hazardous chemicals in international trade which is imported in India.
This inventory was prepared by Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), under
Union Ministry of Environment & Forests, Govt. of India prepared in
September, 2008 with a foreword September 24, 2008 by Shri J. M. Mauskar, the
then Chairman, CPCB and Additional Secretary, Union Ministry of Environment
& Forests This was done pursue of Government of India’s “Manufacture,
Storage, and Import of Hazardous Chemicals (MSIHC) Rules, 1989” under the
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. According to these Rules, any person
responsible for importing hazardous chemicals in India is to provide the data
of import to the concerned authorities, as identified in Column 2 of Schedule 5
to the Rules. The CPCB “has been identified as one of such Authorities. In
order to study the inventory of Hazardous Chemicals being imported by various
categories of industrial units in India, the data provided by these industrial
units to the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) have been compiled.” It is
scandalous as to why did the Indian delegation took a position inconsistent
with the Manufacture, Storage, and Import of Hazardous Chemicals (MSIHC) Rules,
1989.
I
submit that even under Factories Act, 1948, the List of 29 industries involving
hazardous processes is given under Section 2 (cb), Schedule First, asbestos is
mentioned at serial no. 24. The Act defines "hazardous process"
as “any process or activity in relation to an industry specified in the First
Schedule where, unless special care is taken, raw materials used therein or the
intermediate or finished products, bye-products, wastes or effluents thereof
would--(i) cause material impairment to the health of the persons engaged in or
connected therewith, or (ii) result in the pollution of the general
environment”. This leaves no doubt that asbestos is a hazardous
substance. The Act is available at:
I
submit that promoters of white chrysotile asbestos like ACPMA who were planted
in the Indian delegation made the government representatives take a position
against human health and the environment and to put profit of the asbestos
industry before gnawing public health concerns.
I
submit that on June 22, 2011 Indian delegation led by Ms. Mira Mehrishi,
Additional Secretary, had supported the listing of Chrysotile asbestos as a
hazardous chemical substance at the fifth meeting on Rotterdam Convention
amidst standing ovation. TWA had taken the opportunity of congratulating the
government but the about turn in May 2013 was a sad let down.
It
is reliably learnt that officials and scientists who go to such UN meetings
feel humiliated when the industry representatives give them directions instead
of the senior government officials or ministers. The UN meet on hazardous
chemicals creates a rationale for insulating government officials from undue
and motivated industry influence else they will be obliged to act like parrots.
The Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs (CCEA) must factor in the far
reaching implications for public health before defending the indefensible
hazardous asbestos industry. The day is not far when members of CCEA too will
be held liable for their acts of omission and commission as is happening in
more than 50 countries that have banned all kinds of asbestos.
In
keeping with Indian laws when the UN’s Chemical Review Committee of Rotterdam
Convention recommended listing of white chrysotile asbestos as hazardous
substance it is incomprehensible as why Indian delegation opposed its inclusion
in the UN list. The only explanation appears to be the fact that the Indian
government delegation did not have a position independent of the asbestos
industry’s position which has covered up and denied the scientific evidence
that all asbestos can cause disease and death.
I
submit that there is a case going on against the white asbestos in the National
Human Rights Commission (NHRC), New Delhi wherein the applicant has demanded
inclusion of white asbestos in the UN list. On behalf of the Union Ministry of
Environment & Forests, Shri R B Lal, Deputy Director has submitted its
reply to the NHRC. The reply did not disclose that the delegation of Government
of India led by Ms. Mira Mehrishi, Additional Secretary had announced its
agreement to the inclusion of chrysotile asbestos in the list of hazardous
chemicals paving the way for its “phase out” as envisioned in Union Environment
Ministry’s Vision Statement amidst standing ovation. This reply to NHRC chose
to maintain deafening silence about its own Vision Statement that says,
“Alternatives to asbestos may be used to the extent possible and use ofasbestos
may be phased out”.
I
submit that meanwhile, an Advisory Committee of Union Ministry of Labour has
been set up to implement Hon’ble Supreme Court order issued 15 years ago on
January 27, 1995 and repeated on January 23, 2012. Although more than 1 year
and four months have passed but the Advisory Committee headed by Shri A C
Pandey, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Labour is yet to submit its report to
incorporate specific directions of the Court with regard to fresh ILO’s
Resolution of June 14, 2006 introducing a ban on all mining, manufacture,
recycling and use of all forms of asbestos. NHRC has served a notice to the
Ministry of Labour after considering the matter on 24 December 2014, asking it
provide details about steps taken to ban white chrysotile asbestos.
I
submit that even early industry-funded studies showed a causal relationship
between asbestos exposure and cancer. Had this been made known to the public it
could have prevented countless deaths but the asbestos industry made the
conscious decision to protect their profits instead and choose to keep this
information hidden from the public. India’s asbestos industry is following the
same path.
As
a consequence, although millions of Indian lives are being lost and millions
are being exposed to the killer fibers of white chrysotile asbestos, no
government agency or company is being held liable due to political patronage
which becomes quite glaringly visible when ACPMA is included as part of the
delegation.
While
on a visit to New Delhi, Dr Alec Farquhar, the then Managing Director,
Occupational Health Clinics for Ontario Workers, Canada said, “We now have around
500 asbestos cancer cases every year in Ontario from a population of 13
million. If you (India) continue on your current path, you will multiply our
death count by 100 times. That would be 50, 000 Indian workers dying every year
from asbestos. In Ontario, we learned that safe use of asbestos is impossible.
I urge you from the bottom of my heart, please do not make the same mistake as
we made in Canada. Stop using asbestos and use a safe alternative.” It is clear
that lack of documentation and lack of environmental and occupational health
infrastructure does not mean lack of victims of asbestos related diseases.
It
has been estimated that one person dies from mesothelioma for every 170 tons of
asbestos consumed. WHO estimates we have107,000 deaths worldwide per year from
occupational exposure to asbestos.If non occupational exposure is added it
reaches a figure of about 120,000deaths. Average world consumption/year 30-60
years ago was -- looks like3/2 of what it is now (2 million metric tons/year).
Give India its share ofthat based on its share of global consumption. At
300,000 tons in 2013, that's about 18,000 deaths (15% of 120,000).
Asbestos diseases have a very long incubation period. So if you are exposed
today to an asbestos fibre, you are likely to get the disease in next 10-35
years. Asbestos is like a time bomb to the lungs and Indians will suffer the
most. If it is banned today that does not mean people will not suffer. Because
of past usage people will continue to suffer from these diseases.
I
submit that the very existence of ACPMA is highly problematic and very dubious.
ACPMA which faced charges of cartelization by the Competition Commission of
India is registered under The Societies Registration Act, 1860 and it claims to
be a non-profit organization. Is the asbestos industry a non-profit
organization?
They make completely dubious and baseless claims. They have put profit ahead of
public health. These associations appear inhuman, cruel and have a deviant
behavior. The members of ACPMA all await the fate of Kubota Corporation.
I
wish to draw your attention towards the verdict of five judges of Japan’s
Supreme Court of February 17, 2015 that has upheld a ruling that found asbestos
used at a plant of Kubota Corporation caused fatal mesothelioma in a man who
lived near the plant and ordered the company to pay ¥31.9 million in damages to
his relatives. The petitioners were relatives of Kojiro Yamauchi, who died at
age 80 after working for two decades about 200 meters from the Kubota plant in
Amagasaki, Hyogo Prefecture. His relatives and those of Ayako Yasui, who died
at age 85 having lived about 1 km from the plant, sought damages from both
Kubota and the government. In October, 2014 the Supreme Court ruled that the
government was responsible for failing to protect workers from exposure at
asbestos factories in Sennan, Osaka Prefecture.
It
is noteworthy that Japan has banned asbestos of all kinds including white
chrysotile asbestos.
I also
wish to draw your attention towards the fact that our neighbor Nepal has become
the first country in South Asia which going in the direction of banning
asbestos
I
submit that in January 1995, while passing the judgment for the asbestos case
file by the Consumer Education & Research Centre (CERC) (case details:
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/ 1657323/), Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
directed all asbestos factories to keep the health records of their workers for
40 years and/or 15 years after their retirement. I challenge the entire ACPMA
member to simply upload their employee’s heath records on their websites.
I
submit that the second significant direction was the GoI and the state
governments have to mend their rules and regulation as per the ILO resolution
(International Labour Organisation). The ILO says eliminate asbestos of all
kinds for elimination of asbestos related-diseases. Controlled use is not
possible. It has not been possible for all the countries which have banned it
and this is impossible in India too.
I
submit that in August 2003, during the previous NDA led government regime, the
health minister
had
informed the parliament that asbestos causes incurable lung diseases (such as
asbestosis, lung cancer, etc).
I
submit that Navy officials have rightly objected to presence of asbestos in
aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov which was inducted into the Indian Navy as
INS Vikramaditya after asbestos decontamination.
I
submit that Union of India’s Budget 2011-12 had made reference to asbestos
related diseases by including it under the Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana to
cover ‘unorganized sector workers in hazardous mining and associated industries
like asbestos etc”. During Emergency, the ruling party and its acolytes had
proposed to put opposition leaders in jails which had asbestos roofs.
I
submit that there are fibre substitutes that have been evaluated by WHO are
listed in the Summary Consensus Report of WHO Workshop on Mechanisms of Fibre
Carcinogenesis and Assessment of Chrysotile Asbestos Substitutes.
I
submit that sooner or later, the asbestos industry will go bankrupt because
they will have to pay huge amount of money in compensation. For every injury in
the law there is a remedy. The present and the future generation will make sure
they get remedy.
I
submit that the rate of consumption of growth which they are enjoying today
does not mean it will continue. In western countries, the rate picked at one
time and today it is zero. This is the peak of Asbestos industry in India and
now, the downfall will start.
I
submit that the industry must be persuaded to phase out in two phases. In the
first phase the goal is to eliminate use of chrysotile asbestos and the number
of exposed workers and consumers in the country. In the second phase, the goal
is to create incentives for the use of safer materials, ensure, create a
registry of asbestos laden buildings and victims of asbestos-related diseases
and ensure decontamination of the former and compensation for the latter.
There is an immediate need to conduct an audit of the current status of the victims
of asbestos related diseases from the government hospital records in the
country and make it mandatory for medical colleges to provide training for
doctors so that they can diagnose diseases caused by occupational,
non-occupational and environmental exposures to killer fibers and substances.
I
submit that in the 30th year of Bhopal disaster, asbestos industry should pay
heed to the way asbestos companies have gone bankrupt in the western countries.
They should join hands and create a compensation fund for victims. Dow
Chemicals Company which refuses to own the liability for Bhopal disaster caused
by Union Carbide Corporation (UCC) in India has owned the UCC’s asbestos
related liabilities and announced a compensation fund of 2.2 billion dollars
for the victims. In Europe, tycoons and ministers are facing criminal charges
and imprisonment for their act of knowing subjecting unsuspecting people to
killer fibers of asbestos. The future is no different for Indian culprits.
I
submit that it is eminently consistent with the principle of prior informed
consent for India which imports white chrysotile asbestos from countries like
Russia, Brazil, Zimbabwe, Kazakhstan and others to receive the information to
assess whether it has the ability to safely use this substance or products
containing it. The fact remains that the Convention is about prior informed
consent about trade in hazardous chemicals and not about banning any hazardous
substance.
I
submit that India should not allow itself to be misled by asbestos producers
like Russia in this regard now that Canada has rightly stopped mining of white
chrysotile asbestos almost like India due its “deleterious” impact on
health.
In
view of the above, I demand that vested interests like ACPMA should not be
included in the Indian delegation and it must support its inclusion in the
Annexure III of the Rotterdam Convention at the UN meetings in March and in
May, 2015 in Geneva.
Thanking
You
Yours faithfully
Gopal Krishna
Mb: 08227816731, 09818089660
E-mail:1715krishna@gmail.com
Web: www.toxicswatch.org
Cc
Smt.
Sushma Swaraj, Union Minister of External Affairs
Shri
Ananth Kumar, Union Ministry of Chemicals & Fertilizers
Shri
Prakash Javadekar, Union Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change
Dr.
S. Jaishankar, Foreign Secretary, Union Ministry of External Affairs
Shri Surjit Kumar Chaudhary, Secretary, Union Ministry of Chemicals &
Fertilizers
No comments:
Post a Comment