ToxicsWatch Alliance
(TWA)
To
Shri Ananth
Kumar
Union Minister
of Chemicals & Fertilizers
Government of
India
New Delhi
Shri Prakash
Javadekar,
Union Minister
of State for Environment
Forests &
Climate Change
Government of
India
New Delhi
May 3, 2015
Subject- Why India must
disassociate itself from Russia & other white chrysotile asbestos producers
at CoP 7 of Rotterdam Convention in Geneva during May 2015
Sir,
With reference to the Seventh
Conference of Parties of the Rotterdam Convention in Geneva, Switzerland from
4th May to 15th May 2015 and my earlier letter dated 25th March 2015,
I submit that Hon'ble Supreme Court has examined the carcinogenicity of
“ASBESTOS (mesothelioma and lung cancer)” in the Consumer Education &
Research Centre Vs Union Of India & Others case in its landmark verdict dated
27th January, 1995.
I submit that this
verdict established Right to Health as part of Right to Life. This judgment is
quite relevant for hazardous industries in general and asbestos industry in particular
in the 30th year of Bhopal disaster.
It is noteworthy that Union Carbide Corporation was also in the business of asbestos
whose liabilities has been inherited by Dow Chemicals Company making it set up
a $ 2.2 billion compensation fund for the victims of asbestos related diseases
in USA.
I submit that the
purpose of the Convention is to promote responsible trade. Indian delegation
should be advised to:
·
to support responsible trade
·
to support the recommendation of the
Convention's scientific committee (the Chemical Review Committee) to list
chrysotile asbestos
·
to support the purpose of the
Convention, which is to provide the right to Prior Informed Consent, based on
the recommendations of the Convention's scientific committee
I submit that the
Convention is based on a process under which the Chemical Review Committee
examines the evidence before recommending whether a substance should be put on
the Convention's list of hazardous substances. Some countries like Russia who
are promoting transfer of harm to countries like ours due to their incestuous
relationship with the asbestos industry are rejecting the scientific process
and refusing to act as per the recommendation of the scientific committee in
the matter of white chrysotile asbestos.
I wish to inform you
that European Union (EU) might be sponsoring asbestos industry and government
stakeholders to take part in this conference that is to decide on listing of white
chrysotile asbestos in the list of hazardous substances. It is quite bizarre
given the fact that all the 27 countries of European Union have banned asbestos
of all kinds. Indian delegation should be made wary of their presence and
influence and actively resist them instead of succumbing to their temptations
and persuasions. EU hosted the asbestos industry representatives during March
30 and 31, 2015 at the Technical Workshop on Chrysotile Asbestos which was organized
by the Rotterdam Convention Secretariat. Indian delegation should be wary of Secretariat
attempting to pander to the whims and fancies of asbestos producing countries
like Russia, China, Brazil, Kazakhstan and others. In 2013, Russia produced 1,050,000
tonnes, China produced 420,000 tonnes, Brazil produced 307,000 tonnes and
Kazakhstan produced 242,000 tonnes of asbestos. India consumed 303,000 tonnes
of asbestos in 2013 although asbestos consumption dropped by 39% in 2013 but
still it remains a big consumer. Such rate of consumption increases burden of
incurable lung diseases.
I
submit that on December 27th, 2012 a new "List of recommended
substitutes for toxic and hazardous raw materials" was officially
published by China's Ministry of Industry and Information Technology. Asbestos
was included in category 3, the most advanced class for which substitutes have
been developed and are being used. In the document, asbestos was categorized as
a toxic and hazardous substance which could be replaced by safer alternatives.
India’s Ministry of Environment & Forests has announced similar action but
follow up action is yet to be taken.
The fact is that mining
of asbestos of all kinds, trade in asbestos waste (dust & fibers) is banned
in India. In June 1993, central government stopped the renewal of existing
mining leases of asbestos. The mining
activity was banned by Union Ministry of Mines.
It is strange that while mining of asbestos is banned in our country due
to adverse health impact, the same is being imported from Russia and other
countries.
I submit that Terms of
Reference (ToR) of Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) which is given to
asbestos companies by Experts Appraisal Committee (EAC)-Industry, Union
Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change, makes explicit reference
to “Health Management Plan for Mesothelioma, Lung cancer and Asbestosis related
problems in asbestos industries.” Evidently, “The raw material asbestos used in
the plant is hazardous in nature.” Source: Gujarat Pollution Control Board, http://gpcb.gov.in/pdf/Ramco_Ind_Ltd_EIA_Report.pdf)
I submit that a letter of Shri B N Mehta, the
then Chief Inspector of Factories, Gujarat State dated December 24th,
2002 submitted in the Hon’ble Supreme Court categorically reveals that two
workers of Gujarat Composites Ltd were confirmed for Asbestosis, an incurable
lung disease by National Institute of Occupational Health (NIOH), Ahmedabad.
The workers were (1) Shri Hazarilal Manraj and (2) Shri Sahejram B Yadav. The
letter recommended compensation of Rs 1 lakh as per the Hon’ble Court’s order
but till date the same has not been given. The letter is available at https://twitter.com/krishna1715/status/503824823747751936
This and many such cases conclusively establish the hazards from asbestos.
Influence of the asbestos industry becomes quite obvious when Government turns
a blind eye to such glaring official facts. This is also a clear case of
contempt of court by the asbestos based company. It may be noted that Gujarat
Composite Ltd (formerly named Digvijay Cement Company) is refusing to pay and appears
to be attempting to hide behind myriad corporate veils by changing names and by
outsourcing its work. This is what the industry has done in more than 50
countries but failed to avoid the inevitability of ban on all kinds of asbestos
including white chrysotile asbestos. NIOH had also found in a study submitted
in the Hon’ble Court that 16 % of the migrant workers involved the ship
breaking industrial activity were exposed asbestos but none of the workers have
been compensated till date.
I submit that Indian delegation’s position with
regard to asbestos must be made consistent to Indian laws in practice. 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 INVENTORY OF HAZARDOUS CHEMICALS
IMPORT IN INDIA 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 lists ‘asbestos’ at serial no. 26 as one of the 180 hazardous chemicals
in international trade which is imported in India. 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 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:http://labour.nic.in/upload/uploadfiles/files/ActsandRules/Service_and_Employment/The%20Factories%20Act,%201948.pdf
I submit that the Indian delegation was joined by
supporters of asbestos industry in 2013. It is quite apparent that the industry
representatives overwhelmed the government representatives who were made to
take 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.
I submit that TWA had taken the opportunity of
congratulating the government but government’s about turn in 2013 was a sad let
down. I have learnt from officials and scientists who go to such meetings that
they 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 caged parrots. The role of Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs (CCEA) in
such matters must factor in 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.
It must the noted that
EIAs prepared by asbestos industry routinely admit that “Asbestos fiber will be
used in the plant as a raw material is hazardous in nature, the industry will
give information to the workers on hazards associated with asbestos”. This text
is from the EIA report prepared for a proposed asbestos based plant by Utkal
Asbestos Limited (UAL) in Kanhauli Dhanraj Panchayat of Goraul block, Vaishali
district in Bihar. This EIA report like similar other report admitted that
asbestos factory's "Construction site has a potential hazardous
environment." EIA report of UAL has stated that its construction
environment is hazardous.
It is significant because
Shri Arun Kumar Saraf, Chairman, UAL Industries Ltd, Kolkata, India will be
attending the Rotterdam Convention's conference in Geneva from May 4th, 2015 to
prevent white chrysotile asbestos from being put on the UN list of hazardous
substances.
I submit that Dr S P
Vivek Chandra Rao, Advisor, Asbestos Cement Products Manufacturers Association
visited the office of Sub Divisional Officer (SDO), Mahuwa, Vaishali, Bihar on
September 28, 2012 to represent UAL’s interest in the face of bitter opposition
to its proposed white asbestos based plant in Kanhauli Dhanraj Panchayat of Goraul
block from villagers. Dr Rao attempted
to defend the proposal of asbestos based factory but failed. Vindicating
villagers’ protest Bihar State Pollution Control Board (BSPSCB) cancelled the
No Objection Certificate granted to UAL and established the hazardous nature of
asbestos based factories. Through an order dated December 26, 2013, BSPCB refused
to extend the Consent to Establish (NOC) given to West Bengal based Utkal Asbestos
Limited (UAL)'s proposed asbestos based plant in Vaishali overruling the
recommendations of a Committee of Central Pollution Control Board. This has led
to cancellation of the proposed asbestos factory. Notably, Shri Vivek Chandra Rao Sripalle,
Director, Safety, Health and Environment Asbestos Cement Products
Manufacturers’ Association will be attending the Rotterdam Convention's
conference in Geneva from May 4th, 2015. The case of stoppage of proposed
asbestos factory of UAL in Vaishali, Bihar demonstrates that people are against
such plants.
I submit that Shri Manohar Lal, Director
General, Asbestos Cement Products Manufacturers’ Association (ACPMA) who will be attending the Rotterdam Convention's
conference in Geneva from May 4th, 2015. It may be noted that he Competition
Commission of India (CCI) has said that various factors including high
concentration in the market, product homogeneity and “active association of
manufacturers” led to the decision of investigating anti-competitive practices
in asbestos industry. CCI said in its newsletter. On its website ACPMA reveals,
“The Asbestos Cement Products Manufacturers Association (ACPMA) is a non-profit
organization and is registered with the Registrar of Societies under Indian
Societies Act 1860. The Association was formed in 1985 with an objective to
aid, stimulate and advise promotion of Chrysotile Asbestos Cement Products
(Sheets and Pipes) in India. ACPMA is affiliated to International Chrysotile
Association, (ICA), USA. ICA is an international body formed by various country
Associations and has a membership of 23 countries prominent being Canada,
Brazil, China, Russia, Mexico amongst others. ICA actively represents the
interest of Chrysotile Industry world over…”
The website admits, “ACPMA regularly receives
from ICA latest information on various technical, scientific and health related
issues connected with the safe use of Chrysotile. All such information is
disseminated amongst Members and others connected with the Industry including
Govt. regulatory bodies.” The website refers to its membership stating, “ACPMA
currently has 15 Members having 51 manufacturing units located in various
States providing direct and indirect employment to approximately 300,000 (Three
Lakh) persons and having a gross annual turnover of approx Rs.4500/- crores.”
It refers to a URL saying, “To view the list of members alongwith their office
address”. The URL shows 18 members instead of 15. These are A INFRASTRUCTURE
LTD, ASSAM ROOFING LTD, EVEREST INDUSTRIES LTD, HYDERABAD IND. LTD, JAIPRAKASH
ASSOCIATES LTD, SAHYADRI INDUSTRIES LTD, RAMCO INDUSTRIES LTD, TAMILNADU
CEMENTS CORPN. LTD, U P ASBESTOS LTD, UAL INDUSTRIES LTD, ‘KONARK MANI UDAY’,
VISAKA INDUSTRIES LTD, STURDY INDUSTRIES LTD, VILSON ROOFING PRODUCTS PVT.LTD,
NORTH EAST ROOFING LTD, ARL INFRATECH LTD, SRI VENKATESWARA PIPES LTD, ROOFIT
INDUSTRIES LTD And MRK PIPES LTD.
I submit that the question which merits attention
is how is it that these profit making companies when they become members of the
Asbestos Cement Products Manufacturers Association (ACPMA) turn into “a
non-profit organization and is registered with the Registrar of Societies under
Indian Societies Act 1860”. Essentially, its claim of being a non-profit NGO is
factually incorrect. This appears to be an act of fraudulent representation.
I submit that instead of letting ACPMA undertake
the exercise of defending the profit making enterprises of these hazardous
asbestos based companies, concerned ministries must consider asking each of
these companies to file submissions about the environmental and occupational
health status of the workers in their factories and the health records of the
workers who have retired in compliance with the Hon’ble Supreme Court order of
1995.
It
is noteworthy that Shri Manish Sanghi,
Vice Chairman, Everest Industries Ltd, New Delhi, which also a member of ACPMA represents
Asbestos
Information Centre, which has been spearheading a misinformation to mislead the
government
with regard to hazardous and carcinogenic nature of asbestos.
I submit that officially as of February
2010 the number workers employed in asbestos industry in different seem to show
that their numbers have not been fully disclosed. Andhra Pradesh has seven
factories employing 1389 workers. Assam has two units employing 45 workers.
Delhi has six units having 231 workers. Gujarat has 13 units with 739 workers.
Haryana has 19 units with 1300 workers. Jharkhand has two units with 153
workers. Karnataka has two units with 370 workers. Kerala has one unit with 200 workers. Madhya Pradesh
has 11 units with 610 workers. Odisha has one unit with 477 workers. Rajasthan
has five units 61 workers. Tamil Nadu has 1677 workers. Uttar Pradesh has 11
units with 711 workers. West Bengal has nine units with 1200 workers. Maharashtra
has 24 units with 1338 workers. It has come to light in 2015 that Bihar has 78 asbestos
workers in Bihiya, Bhojpur district. I take the opportunity to challenge the
ACPMA to make the health reports of all these workers employed in the factories
to demonstrate the truth hazardous and carcinogenic nature of asbestos based
factories.
I
submit that documents unearthed under the Right to Information Act revealed how
white chrysotile asbestos industry added Rs. 16 lakh to the government’s Rs. 44
lakh for a study titled ‘Implementation of Rotterdam Convention on Prior
Informed Consent Procedures — Study of Health Hazards/Environment Hazards
Resulting from the Use of Chrysotile Variety of Asbestos in the Country’ by
National Institute of Occupational Health (NIOH), Ahemdabad to “specifically
indicate how technology has made working conditions [in asbestos factories]
better.” The minutes of the Review Committee for the NIOH study obtained
through the RTI application dated December 19, 2006, read: “The report will be
finalised after due discussions with the asbestos industry.” Another meeting
minutes, dated April 18, 2007, report that “...the results of the study which
was under way could not be shared [with public] till the same was finalised.” A
letter dated April 24, 2006 from Under Secretary to the Government of India,
Dept. of Chemicals and Petrochemicals, Union Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers
to Director, NIOH: “the deliverables will include generation of data which
would justify the safe standards of its usage as also the reasons/rationale
justifying its non-inclusion/or otherwise in the PIC ambit…”. The attached
releases from Press Information Bureau, Government of India reveal how
government had to admit conflict of interest in both the Houses of Parliament.
I submit
that last time in 2013, India
delegation relied on an irrelevant note of the Ministry of Chemicals prepared
on the basis of an admittedly questionable study of NIOH study. The Indian
Council Medial Research Annual Report 2011-2012 reported the “Study of
Hazards/Environmental Hazards resulting from use of Chrysotile variety of
asbestos in the country (Ministry of Chemicals & Fertilizers, GOI)”
as having been done. The Director, NIOH had sent a revised proposal on June 22,
2005 to Under Secretary. Department of Chemicals and Petrochemicals, Ministry
of Chemicals and Fertilizers, Government of India to conduct the study.
I submit that a reply
from Shri R N Jindal, Union Ministry of Environment &
Forests based on Department of Chemicals and Petrochemicals (DCPC)’s note
dated June 18th, 2013 on the issue of Government of India’s position
on hazardous substance chrysotile asbestos at the Sixth Conference of Parties
of (CoP-6) of the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure
for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade held
during April 28-May 10, 2013 in Switzerland.
The 7 page long note of
the Department of Chemicals and Petrochemicals (DCPC), Union Ministry of
Chemicals and Fertilizers on the subject of Chrysotile Asbestos titled
‘Department of Chemicals and Petrochemicals’ View on the use of Chrysotile
Asbestos” in the country’ was shared with me by the Union Ministry of
Environment & Forests (MoEF). MoEF’s contention based DCPC’s note stating
that “On the basis of the said note, the listing of Chrysotile Asbestos under
Annex ‘A’ of Rotterdam Convention at CoP-6 during April 28th -May 10th 2013 at
Geneva could not be supported” is misplaced.
The note of the ‘line department’, i.e. Department of Chemicals and Petrochemicals (DCPC), Union Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers on the subject chrysotile asbestos. The note of the DCPC reveals that it has failed to understand the purpose of the Rotterdam Convention and ignorance about the objective of the Convention. The note is irrelevant from the point of view of the objective of the Convention for which it was prepared. While one disagrees with the findings of the conflict of interest ridden study conducted by the National Institute of Occupational Health, (NIOH), it is evident that even this study does not state that chrysotile asbestos is not a hazardous chemical. Had NIOH study concluded that Chrysotile Asbestos is not a hazardous chemical it may have become relevant. But even then it would have been legally unsustainable because under Indian laws chrysotile asbestos is a hazardous chemical.
The concluding sentence of the DCPC’s note saying, “In view of
the above, India may take a stand in the next CoP meeting of Rotterdam
Convention for not inclusion of chrysotile asbestos in Annexure-III of
Convention. The flawed conclusion of the note titled ‘Department of
Chemicals and Petrochemicals’ View on the use of Chrysotile Asbestos” in the
country’ is quite stark and will not stand scrutiny of logic and law.
I submit that Hon'ble Supreme
Court has observed, “In man the link of lung cancer with asbestos has been
mainly epidemiological. while asbestosis cannot occur without exposure to
asbestos consequently every case of asbestosis must be linked with such
exposure, with pulmonary cancer the situation is quite different. It is a
rather common disease in the general population. The link with exposure to
asbestos is based on finding whether in those exposed to asbestos is based on
finding whether in those exposed to
asbestos bang cancer occurs more frequently than in those unexposed, i.e.
whether in those exposed there is an excess incidence of lung cancers.”(1995
AIR 922, 1995 SCC (3) 42)
I submit that there is a The
White Asbestos (Ban on Use and Import) Bill, 2014 pending in the Rajya Sabha. The statement of objects and reasons of
this Bill specifically notices that the white asbestos is highly carcinogenic
and it has been so reported by the World Health Organisation. In India, it is imported without any restriction
while even its domestic use is not preferred by the exporting countries….In
view of these facts, there is an urgent need for a total ban on the import and
use of white asbestos and promote the use of alternative materials. Hon’ble
Court observed that “The Bill is yet to
be passed but it is clearly demonstrated that the Government is required to
take effective steps to prevent hazardous impact of use of asbestos and took
cognizance of the resolution of WHO and ILO seeking elimination of all
forms of asbestos. ILO resolution is available at http://www.ilo.org/public/english/standards/relm/ilc/ilc95/pdf/pr-20.pdf
I submit that taking cognisance of Hon'ble
Court’s judgment dated 27th January, 1995, when the Ministry of
Environment of Forests came out with its 19 page long Vision Statement on
Environment and Human Health (Para 4.3.1) it stated: “Alternatives to asbestos may be used to the extent
possible and use of asbestos may be phased out” on page no. 12. This is
available on its website. Source: moef.nic.in/divisions/cpoll/envhealth/visenvhealth.pdf.
I submit that in a concept paper Union Ministry
of Labour disclosed at the two-day 5th India-EU Joint Seminar on “Occupational
Safety and Health” on 19-20th September, 2011 that "The Government of
India is considering the ban on use of chrysotile asbestos in India to protect
the workers and the general population against primary and secondary exposure
to Chrysotile form of Asbestos." It has noted that "Asbestosis is yet
another occupational disease of the Lungs which is on an increase under similar
circumstances warranting concerted efforts of all stake holders to evolve
strategies to curb this menace". The document is readily available at http://www.labour.nic.in/lc/Background%20note.pdf)
I submit that in a notice dated December 24,
2014, Hon’ble National Human Rights Commission has asked the Ministry of Labour
regarding steps taken in pursuance of its concept paper.
I wish to inform you that US Environment
Protection Agency says, “No safe exposure threshold (with respect to for
inhaling asbestos fibers) has been established, but the risk of disease
generally increases with the length and amount of exposure.”
Source :http://yosemite.epa.gov/R10/OWCM.NSF/0/1892d33bca669504882566d700671e50?OpenDocument
The same is reiterated by World Health Organization (WHO) at http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2006/WHO_SDE_OEH_06.03_eng.pdf
I wish to draw your attention towards a paper
titled ‘Asbestos-An Important Public Health Hazard’ published for the National
Convention of Chemistry Teachers and National Seminar on “Emerging Trends in
Green Chemistry during October 15-17 2011. In the paper, it is stated that as
early as “In 1935 first time, Lynch Smith described a lung carcinoma in a
patient with asbestosis (fibrosis of the lung caused by the inhalation of
asbestos dust). A large number of clinical, epidemiologic, and experimental
studies established carcinogenic effect of different types of asbestos fibers
on various tissues and organs, both in humans and in experimental animals.
Inhalation is major source of exposure in humans.” It also noted that “its
(asbestos) diffusion in the occupational and general environment causing a lot
of health hazards even cancer.” This
event was recognized by International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry
(IUPAC) and United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
(UNESCO) as part of The International Year of Chemistry 2011.
Taking cognisance of
threats to life and public health; as of April 2015 more than 50 countries have
banned production, use, manufacture and trade of the hazardous mineral fiber,
ASBESTOS. These countries are: Israel, Japan, France ,Nepal, Australia, Italy,
Germany, South Africa, Switzerland,
South Korea, Denmark, Algeria, Czech Republic, Iceland, Malta, Serbia, Argentina,
Ireland, Portugal , Mozambique, Seychelles, Egypt, Netherlands, Slovakia, Austria,
Estonia, New Caledonia, Slovenia, Bahrain, Finland, Norway, Belgium, Poland, Sweden,
Bulgaria, Uruguay, Chile, Greece, Latvia, Qatar, Turkey, Kuwait, Croatia, Honduras, Lithuania,
Romania, Cyprus, Hungary, Luxembourg, Jordan, Oman, Brunei, Gabon, Saudi Arabia, Spain and United Kingdom.
Hong Kong’s Legislative Council has adopted the Air Pollution Control (Amendment)
(No. 2) Ordinance 2013 on 22nd January, 2014 which bans the import,
transhipment, supply and use of all forms of asbestos as of 4th
April, 2014. In a related development Nepal has banned the import, sale, distribution and
use of all asbestos on the grounds of public health on 22nd December,
2014. The prohibitions will come into effect on 20th June, 2015.
I submit that WHO says,
“One in every three deaths from occupational cancer is estimated to be caused
by asbestos. In addition, it is estimated that several thousand deaths annually
can be attributed to exposure to asbestos in the home.” Source:
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs343/en/index.html
It is noteworthy that asbestos industry is one
of the 64 heavily polluting industries under Red Category of Union Environment
& Forests Ministry. In fact, commerce in asbestos waste (dust & fibers)
is banned in India under Hazardous Waste Management Rules under Environment
Protection Act, 1986.
I submit that following
Hon’ble Court’s order India has to adopt the fresh resolution of ILO seeking
elimination of asbestos which has been endorsed by the Court. This has been
reiterated by the Hon’ble Court in its judgment dated January 21, 2011.
Government ought to be more sensitive to workers' health to disassociate itself
from its sad legacy of being indifferent towards them. The ministry's vision
statement does talk about environmental and occupational health at considerable
length. It is about time it acted as per its own vision and concept paper.
I submit that if by the
end of the deliberations, it becomes apparent that there will be no consensus
on inclusion of white chrysotile asbestos in the Annexure III, Indian
delegation should be advised to voluntarily declare its desire to get it
included in the list. The decision in Geneva will illustrate whether or not any
mafiosi of asbestos industry can
hold hostage it hostage or not. It should consider seeking a moratorium on use
of asbestos based construction materials in disaster affected areas. If this is
not done it would amount to making profit over disaster affected persons a
priority.
Disregarding
the regressive influence of asbestos producers like Russia, Indian government
should act to make South Asian and the India-Brazil- South Africa (IBSA) region
countries asbestos free. Notably, South Africa has already banned asbestos and
several States in Brazil too have banned it. In India, States like Uttarkhand
and Union Territory of Chandigarh has supported prohibitory action in writing. It
has quite often been said that asbestos industry acts like tobacco industry in
operating its propaganda machine. Government has done well to resist tobacco
lobby, it should do the same in the matter of this lung cancer causing
industry.
In view of the above, I earnestly urge you stop objecting to
the listing of chrysotile asbestos (white asbestos) as a dangerous material
under the Rotterdam Convention on exports of hazardous materials, Government of
India is under an ethical and logical obligation, backed by indisputable
scientific and medical evidence to do so to protect the health of citizens,
workers and their families of the present and future generations. Government of
India must demonstrate that it will remain consistent with its domestic law and
resist the century old tremendous influence of asbestos lobby at this UN
conference.
Thanking You
Yours faithfully
Gopal Krishnaa
Ban Asbestos
Network of India (BANI)
ToxicsWatch
Alliance (TWA)
Mb: 08227816731,
09818089660
E-mail-1715krishna@gmail.com
Blog:banasbestosindia.blogspot.in
Web:
www.toxicswatch.org
Cc
Cabinet Secretary, Government of India
Dr. S. Jaishankar, Foreign Secretary, Union Ministry of External Affairs
Dr. S. Jaishankar, Foreign Secretary, Union Ministry of External Affairs
Shri Surjit Kumar Chaudhary, Secretary, Department
of Chemicals and Petrochemicals, Union Ministry of Chemicals & Fertilizers
Shri Ashok Lavasa, Secretary,
Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change
Secretary, Union Ministry of
Health & Family Welfare
Secretary, Department of
Health Research, Union Ministry of Health & Family Welfare
Secretary, Union Ministry of
Labour
Shri Shashi Shekhar, Special Secretary,
Chairman, Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), Union Ministry of
Environment, Forests & Climate Change
Shri A.J.V. Prasad, Joint
Secretary (Chemicals), Department of Chemicals and Petrochemicals, Ministry of
Chemicals and Fertilizers
Shri Hansraj Gangaram, Union Minister of State of Chemicals &
Fertilizers
Permanent Mission, Government of India
Chairman, Parliamentary Standing Committee on Environment,
Forests, Science & Technology Chairman, Parliamentary Standing Committee on
Health
Chairman, Parliamentary Standing Committee on Chemicals & Fertilizers
Chairman, Public Accounts Committee
Chairman, Parliamentary Standing Committee on Industry
Chairman, Parliamentary Standing Committee on Commerce
Hon’ble Members of Parliament
Chairman, Parliamentary Standing Committee on Chemicals & Fertilizers
Chairman, Public Accounts Committee
Chairman, Parliamentary Standing Committee on Industry
Chairman, Parliamentary Standing Committee on Commerce
Hon’ble Members of Parliament
