Skip to main content

Indian stance seeks to turn country into a 'landfill' for foreign hazardous waste

By Gopal Krishna* 

The 15th Conference of the Parties to the Basel Convention on Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal (COP-15) was underway with the 10th Conference of Parties to the Rotterdam Convention and the 10th Conference of Parties to the Stockholm Convention from June 6 to 17, 2022 in Geneva.
These meetings focused on the theme: "Global Agreements for a Healthy Planet: Sound management of chemicals and waste". Prior to the COP-13 of Basel Convention Union Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change had sought comments and suggestions on matters of the Basel Convention (BC), Rotterdam Convention (RC) and Stockholm Convention (RC). It was a good initiative but that approach has not been abandoned.
It may be recalled that on the opening day of the COP-13 of Basel Convention, India’s official delegation had shocked everyone with its statement in opposition to UN accord to stop the flow of hazardous wastes from developed to developing countries like India.
This position was akin to opposing Prime Minister’s Clean India Mission. This position was also contrary to Supreme Court’s verdict in the hazardous wastes case. The verdict was based on the recommendations of Prof MGK Menon headed High Powered Committee on Hazardous Wastes Management.
During COP-15, India raised the issue of mixutre of hazardous and non-hazardous wastes which are mis-labeled as products imported for recycling or recovery along with other countries. This needs to be looked at in the light of India’s Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016 under the Environment (Protection) At, 1986.
It may be noted that the “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 waste has become part of ministry's sound environmental management approach. This term was introduced in 2008 when Hazardous Waste (Management, Handling & Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008 was farmed apparently under the influence of hazardous waste traders when the pre-existing Hazardous Waste Rule was amended. This term has been lifted from UN’s Basel Convention on Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal.
It may be recalled that the 2008 Rules was initially proposed as “Hazardous Materials (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules”. The use of the term “Materials” instead of “Wastes” was an exercise in linguistic corruption whereby an attempt was made define waste as non-waste.
The Rules of 2016 does not factor in Ban Amendment to Basel Convention of 1995 which goes beyond "transboundary movement" of hazardous waste and other wastes. Since July 1989 till November 2021, the Hazardous Wastes Management Rules have been amended to dilute its original intent and purpose to steer clear of ban on free trade in hazardous waste.
The seemingly innocent observation of the Indian delegate at COP-15 assumes significance because India is yet to ratify Ban Amendment to Basel Convention which came into force on December 5, 2019. Now that the Basel Ban Amendment has become an international law, it prohibits the export of hazardous wastes from member states of the European Union, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), and Liechtenstein to all other countries.
The Ban Amendment was adopted by the parties to the Basel Convention in 1995 which banned all forms of hazardous waste exports from the 29 wealthiest most industrialized countries of the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) to all non-OECD countries from January 1, 1998.
In compliance with the spirit of Supreme Court’s verdict that endorsed Basel Convention in October 2003 and in the light of the Ban Amendment to Basel Convention of 1995, India will have to amend its Hazardous Waste Rules again.
Meanwhile, there is a need for joint reading of the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management & Transboundary Movement) Amendment Rules, 2019 with the circular of Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) dated November 2, 2018 sent to all State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs) on the subject of "Directions Under Section 18(1)(B) of The Water (Prevention & Control Of Pollution) Act, 1974 And The Air (Prevention & Control Of Pollution) Act, 1981 Regarding Streamlining Of Consent Mechanism".
It reveals how exemption from requirement of consent and authorization under the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management & Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016 will be deeply detrimental to the cause of environmental protection.
Given the fact that under Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981, it is for the SPCBs and Pollution Control Committees (PCCs) of Union Territories which give consent and authorisation under these two Acts, the provision stating that "environmental surveillance of industries should be on random basis, and SPCBs/PCCs shall evolve mechanism for that" instead of 24X7 environmental surveillance on a regular basis paves the way for very serious disruption of existing regulatory mechanisms.
Such directions have already been implemented in some States who have exempted over 100 categories of industries from Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management & Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016 and Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981. This is fraught with unprecedented adverse consequences for environmental and occupational health and related disease burden.
At COP-13, one of the official delegates from India had given a speech crticising the Ban Amendment to Basel Convention belittling India’s stature and its scientific community by claiming that the Ban Amendment is contrary to sustainable consumption and the circular economy as well as the Sustainable Development Goals.
This strange claim implied India permits import of hazardous waste in a situation where services and infrastructure to deal with their hazardous waste and other wastes such as laboratories for testing samples of imported waste and treatment facilities and landfills are almost non-existent.
This amounted to turning India into a land of landfills for foreign hazardous wastes by allowing free trade in hazardous waste in a business as usual manner unmindful of Prime Minister’s Clean India Mission and Supreme Court’s verdict. Notably, Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016 has a provision for “the import license from Directorate General of Foreign Trade”, Ministry of Commerce and Industry.
It disregards National Environment Policy that includes 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. The fact is that India does not have the capacity to scientifically treat and dispose of waste that is generated in the country.
The Supreme Court’s verdict states:
 “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.”
This verdict was pronounced in Writ Petition (Civil) No.657 of 1995. Notably, Basel Convention has been made part of the verdict by the Court 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 dumping of hazardous wastes in Indian waters as violation of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
It emerges that the Court’s verdict creates a compelling logic for India to ratify Ban Amendment to the Basel Convention to prevent dumping of all kinds of hazardous wastes including end-of-life ships in Indian waters. According to Basel Convention, “wastes are materials which are disposed of, or intended to be disposed of, or required to be disposed of, to the environment”. The Court’s verdict has 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.
India’s position articulated on June 8, 2022 at Geneva is linked to motivated attempts which have faced strident criticism from environment, public health groups and even the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) when hazardous wastes and hazardous materials and recyclable materials was being made synonymous by redefining "hazardous waste" as "hazardous material" in a manifest act of linguistic corruption.
It is noteworthy that in a study, Associated Chambers of Commerce & Industry (ASSOCHAM) also recommended ban on trade in hazardous wastes. They who are complicit in promoting hazardous waste dumping in the country are doing so at the behest of hazardous waste traders. Their role merits probe.
India must ratify Ban amendment to Basel Convention on Hazardous Waste Movement & Disposal in order to prevent dumping of waste
The reluctance of India in ratifying Ban Amendment to prohibit hazardous waste trade implies that Indian government is welcoming globalisation of the toxic hazardous waste and it arrival in Indian waters. India should call for the development of guidance to aid countries to help prohibit efforts to reclassify hazardous waste as non-waste in an exercise of circuitous definition.
Hazardous waste exporters from 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. 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".
India should resist the influence of global hazardous waste traders. She must take a principled stand in tune with the main principles of this UN treaty. These principles state that 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.
The current position of Indian government is contrary to these principles and stands in manifest contrast with its position in 1992. It may be recollected that by decision III/1, of September 22, 1995, at COP-3, the Third meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties to Basel Convention that took place in Geneva in September 1995, adopted the Ban Amendment to the Convention. This amendment banned the export of hazardous wastes for final disposal and recycling from rich countries to poorer countries.
The Indian government seems to be guided by the position of hazardous waste traders from countries like USA, 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 three million businesses, International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), US Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries and Bureau of International Recycling (BIR), the international trade federation representing the world’s recycling industry. These countries and their waste traders have been against Ban Amendment.
For long the government of USA 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 as well. As Chief Economist of World Bank, Summers wrote an internal memo in 1991 which stated, “I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest-wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that.” Unless India wriggles out of the vice like grip of the Lawrence Summers principle, it cannot ban free trade in wastes.
At COP-15, as part of Clean India Mission, Indian government ought 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 (COP-1) 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.” It is apparent that he was responding to Lawrence Summers’ memo dated December 12, 1991.
It may be noted that Indian government was based on scientific evidence even at the Second Conference of Parties Basel Convention (COP-2) in March 1994. It 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 Indian government reversed its position at the Third Conference of Parties to Basel Convention (COP-3) in September 1995 under the deletrous influence of representatives of the US and Australia. Indian delegate announcing that it was reconsidering its position on the Basel Ban.
It was a consequence of the regressive statement of Kamal Nath, the then Union Minister of Environment & Forests who observed that “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.” India’s position on the ratification of the ‘Ban Amendment’ to the Basel Convention is caught in a time warp crafted in 1995. It has paved the way for India to become a leading dumping ground of foreign hazardous waste.
To safeguard country’s environmental security and maritime security, India must not allow itself to be misled by hazardous waste traders who are blinded by their lust for profit at any human and environmental cost. In any case the truth about who all were immorally, unethically and unpatriotically complicit with the hazardous waste traders and who all defended public health will not remain hidden for long.
Recalling the Court’s verdict on hazardous waste and India’s original position against hazardous waste, India should ratify Ban Amendment to save India from becoming the dumping ground of rich countries which are transferring harm because they want to protect their own environment and public health.
India must take a scientific and moral position, recover the lost ground and re-adopt the 1992 position and ask the rich countries to “keep your own waste” for global common good to ensure that foreign toxic waste does not flow in the veins and arteries of present and future Indians.
---
*Law and public policy researcher, an applicant in the hazardous wastes case in the Supreme Court, associated with www.toxicswatch.org

Comments

TRENDING

Unlike Soviet Union, Russia is no friend to India: Ukrainian scholar tells 'Indian friends'

Counterview Desk In an open letter to "dear Indian friends", Anastasia Piliavsky, born in Odessa, Ukraine, studied at Boston and Oxford Universities (on a Rhodes Scholarship), and now teaches at King’s College, London, has said that she faces "deep moral dilemma", personally and professionally, over the "astonishingly unified Indian response to the war in Ukraine." Based on her interaction with a "number of thoughtful and caring Indian friends", in this letter, she says, she is "reeling at the ubiquitous silence at, justifications of or outright support for Putin’s terror, which now prevails in India, at the ubiquitous #IStandWithPutin and #istandwithrussia hashtags." She insists, India must understand, "Unlike the Soviet Union, Russia is no friend to India. Soviet leaders, beginning with (the Ukrainian) Nikita Khrushchev – who declared hindi rusi bhai bhai – built up deep political and cultural exchange with India." Text : I

Teesta treaty? Modi sends ball to Mamata's court amidst Hasina's mango diplomacy

By Samina Akhter*  Most Bangladeshi and India media reports say that the West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee has received 600 kg of mangoes from Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina as part of her "mango-hilsa diplomacy." Hasina also delivered mangoes to President Ram Nath Kovind and Prime Minister Narendra Modi this month, according to the Bangladesh Deputy High Commission in India. In all, 1,200 kg of Amrapali mangoes were delivered to the residences of the President and the Prime Minister of India. According to a Bangladesh's deputy high commission official in Kolkata, a few more chief ministers in the eastern region will likely receive similar gifts. Last year, not only President Kovind and Prime Minister Modi, but also the chief ministers of West Bengal, Tripura, and Assam also received mangoes from Prime Minister Hasina. Hasina delivered mangoes from Rajshahi, including kinds like Golapkhas and Amrapali, as it is the peak season for the delectable fruit in

Technocratic globalism, tyranny? Health Ministry warned: bill to 'enslave' Indians

Sandeep Pandey, Tushar Gandhi By Rosamma Thomas*  Union of Concerned Citizens, a group comprising Magsaysay Award winner Prof Sandeep Pandey, human rights activist Tushar Gandhi, former judge of the Bombay High Court BG Kolse Patil, pediatrician Dr Jacob Puliyel and several renowned Indian citizens have written to the Union Health Minister cautioning him against tabling the draft Public Health Bill in the Monsoon Session of Parliament. “The Public Health (Prevention, Control And Management Of Epidemics, Bio-Terrorism And Disasters) Bill, 2017 and a Prospective Bill of 2022 as discussed in news articles, is straightforwardly violative of Fundamental Rights of the citizens of India and therefore, Ultra Vires of the Indian Constitution. It contravenes several International Treaties and Conventions including the Nuremberg Treaty of 1947 which was enacted to ensure that no country would repeat such inhuman medical atrocities on fellow human beings”, the 12-page letter reads. “Strangely, t

Cops 'refuse to register' complaint after BSF shot landless worker off Bangla border

By Our Representative  Kirity Roy, secretary, Banglar Manabadhikar Suraksha Mancha (MASUM), and national convener, Programme Against Custodial Torture & Impunity (PACTI), in a complaint to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), referring to the incident of “firing and execution” of a poor Muslim youth, has alleged that the 26 year old was was shot at “without giving any warning” one and half kilometers inside the Indian territory from Bangladesh border by an on- duty Border Security Force (BSF) personnel. Stating that the person, Ruhul Mondal, belonged to an Other Backward Class (OBC), and hailed from Ramnarayan Para village under Sagarpara police station in Murshidabad district, West Bengal, Roy in his representation said, the BSF person who shot at him is “attached with Singpara Border Outpost, 141 Battalion”, underlining, the BSF has now floated “self defense theory” to cover up its operation. According to the BSF officials, the incident took place in the jute fields in

Buddhist shrines were 'massively destroyed' by Brahmanical rulers: Historian DN Jha

Nalanda mahavihara By Our Representative Prominent historian DN Jha, an expert in India's ancient and medieval past, in his new book , "Against the Grain: Notes on Identity, Intolerance and History", in a sharp critique of "Hindutva ideologues", who look at the ancient period of Indian history as "a golden age marked by social harmony, devoid of any religious violence", has said, "Demolition and desecration of rival religious establishments, and the appropriation of their idols, was not uncommon in India before the advent of Islam".

Protesters demand release of Teesta Setalvad, Sreekumar, seek review of SC order

By Our Representative  Protests broke out across India on June 27 following Teesta Setalvad’s arrest demanding her immediate release. Sabrang India , a site run by Setalvad, claimed she was “arrested on trumped-up charges after the Supreme Court dismissed the petition moved by Zakia Jafri demanding an investigation into the larger conspiracy behind the 2002 Gujarat violence.” The protesters also demanded release of former DGP Gujarat police RB Sreekumar, also arrested simultaneously. The protests were preceded by over 2,200 people from across the globe signing a statement demanding their immediate release. Leading signatories such as People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) general secretary V Suresh, National Alliance of People’s Movements (NAPM) convenor Medha Patkar, former Naval chief Admiral Ramdas. “The state has used the observations made in the judgment to falsely and vindictively prosecute those who had struggled for justice even in the face of state callousness and complicit

Electoral bonds scheme 'compromises' voluntary nature PM relief fund donations

By Rosamma Thomas*  The Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund (PMNRF) is meant to collect voluntary donations from the general public, either individuals or organizations, to enable assistance to people in times of natural disaster, or for expensive medical treatment. That fundamental voluntary character of the fund, however, has changed in recent years.  The gazette notification of January 2018 announcing the Electoral Bond scheme states, in Clause 12 (2): “The amount of bonds not encashed within the validity period of fifteen days shall be deposited by the authorized bank to the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund”. The Union government has, thus, through notification, directed funds to be deposited into what was meant to be purely voluntary. Commodore Lokesh Batra, who has been campaigning for transparency in government functioning, holds that once a gazette notification has been issued directing that funds be deposited into the PMNRF, the character of the whole fund has changed,

Bulldozing houses in UP: India isn't Israel, Muslims living here 'aren't Palestinians'

By Naveen Tewari, Sandeep Pandey*  A recent full front page of the advertisement by a Bhartiya Janata Party government declares, 'House is not just a word. It is a place where power to dream comes and aspirations are fulfilled. Home is much about dignity and security than it is about shelter.' It further goes on to quote Narendra Modi, 'It is my dream that every Indian has a pucca house by 2022.' The occasion was dedication of houses built by a private builder Balaji to the poor. Having witnessed over the past few days the now iconic picture of a bulldozer running down the Prayagraj house of parents of female Muslim student and activist Afreen Fatima, who participated in the anti-Citizenship Amendment Act and National Register of Citizens protests, one is almost tempted to look for a fine print at the bottom of the page to the effect that the promise of house is subject to the condition that one doesn't participate in any anti-government protest otherwis

Church in India: Rooted in patriarchy, Pope Francis-initiated reforms remain on paper

By Fr Cedric Prakash SJ*  It is ‘Laity Sunday’ once again on June 26! A time for the Church once again to introspect and to see whether the much flaunted ‘lay collaboration’ actually exists in reality or not! In a highly clerical and patriarchal Church, which has stubbornly refused to accept in toto the changes envisaged by Vatican II and as desired by the then Popes John XXIII and Paul VI, introducing any reforms is certainly very difficult. But Pope Francis, in his typical style, is apparently succeeding in doing so! On March 19, 2022 (Feast of St Joseph) the ninth anniversary of the formal inauguration of his pontificate, he published Praedicate Evangelium (Preach the Gospel),his new constitution for the restructuring of the Vatican Curia. It was a reform that was promised at the beginning of his pontificate; several aspects of it have already been implemented over the years. The final document, however, does make some significant changes and provides the vision of a Curia that

'Highly abnormal': AltNews journo's arrest suggests 'deterioration in media freedom'

By Bharat Dogra*  Leading media organizations have come out in strong support of recently arrested journalist Mohammed Zubair. These organizations include, among others, the Editors Guild of India, the Press Club of India, the Delhi Union of Journalists and DIGIPUB, a platform for several important digital media organizations. All these organizations have condemned the recent arrest of the noted journalist and demanded his immediate release. While leading human rights organizations and political parties have also made somewhat similar statements, the strong support of media organizations is particularly important as the effort of the authorities has been to try to present the arrested journalist as someone who has been indulging in irresponsible journalism.  In such a situation the support of those media organizations who are familiar with his work and who are most capable of judging the quality of his work is very important. In this context it is important that some media organization