A recent interim court order on toxic trade throws open a Pandora's box: environment, industry, employment, international commitments... the lot
THE Indian judiciary has done it again.
Taking on the mantle of protecting the
environment from further onslaughts, it
has issued its most far-reaching order
yet - the ban of toxic waste import on
Indian shores. The Delhi High Court
ordered on April 15, 1996, the ban of
toxic waste import, "be it for recycling,
reprocessing or dumping". The
Court asked the government's standing
counsel to file within a week an affidavit
stating whether the Union government
is taking any steps to ban the import
of all kinds of toxic wastes, and whether
it has allowed parties such imports
in the past.
The order is bound to have international ramifications. It derails the Basel
Convention, which was carefully crafted
after lengthy and detailed negotiations
over several years. Countries around the
world - including India - are pledged
to do away with trade in recyclable toxic
waste only by December 31, 1997. Some
experts feel that the court order has put
that in a quandary.
Even if the government wants to
obey the order, does it have the capacity
to do so? Some feel this is not possible,
unless there is set up separate agency,
which will involve itself in keeping a
strict watch on the import of toxic
waste. "Very seriously, that is necessary," feels Dhrubajyoti Ghosh, coordinator of the West Bengal Environment
Improvement Programme. Ghosh
has been much exercised over the
increasing toxic waste imports through
Calcutta port, and had written to the
Prime Minister
regarding this
last March. lie
says the ban will
only be effective
if the intricacies
of the procedure and the
tracks through
which the waste
is often illegally
imported is
studied well.
"While we
don't see this
(Court order) as
a radical step,
we feel that this
would get the process of banning toxic
trade) moving, as there was no other
sign from the government of India, in
meeting the 1998 deadline," said Ann
Leonard of Greenpeace, reacting to the
interim order. Greenpeace is the ultimate hawk in the toxic trade ban issue.
But whereas it is politically correct
for the Northern NGOS, the ground situation in Southern countries do not warrant a blind pushing of an outright ban.
The recycling industry employs thousands of people, and Indian industry has
pledged heavy investments in recycling
non-ferrous metals. Also, industry
needs time to shift from environmentally degrading to environmentally
benign technology.
The government of India had been
among the anti-ban hawks through the
'86s and early '90s, but always marked
out the critical difference between
dumping and recycling but had to give
in to the 1998 deadline. Yet, in the wake
of the immediate ban order by the
Court, the government has made a volte
face. "We will abide by the Court's
order"' states N Bagcln, advisory, pollution control, Ministry of Environment
and Forests (MEF). A worried delegation
representing the non-fierrous metal
industry were closeted with Bagchi in a
meeting when Down To Earth spoke to
him. "The industry is very concerned.But at the moment, we can only give the
inputs the High Court demands us of,"
he added. According to him, the order
was not 'properly defined', with respect
to what amounted to hazardous wastes.
Strangely though, the MEF itself is yet
to mike up its mind on which substances would actually be included in
the list of hazardous substances. This
seems amazing in the fight of the fact
that the Technical Working Group
Committee, under the Basel Convention, meeting in the last week of
April is to finalise the definition of dangerous wastes', and set Lip a list of wastes
to be banned for export (Down To
Earth, Vol 4 No 10).
With around 40 per cent of the
country's requirements of these metals
met by recycling (not all which is
extracted from imported recyclable
waste), and limited mineral resources,
recycling represents a viable alternative
to extraction and/or import of the
metals. "A decision for a complete
and immediate ban can be equated
with a sudden ban on chemical
fertilisers and pesticides in the use of
agriculture, which we all desire, but
Would make do only in a carefully
worked out phased schedule," said
Ravi Sharma of the Centre for Science
and Environment, Delhi. Similarly,
the phase-out requires the involvement
of all stakeholders, including the
workers and industry, on what alternative technologies they may adopt, so
that those employed in these industries,
are not left jobless," he added. The
government will now have to deal with a
major problem in hand: Court or
Convention?
We are a voice to you; you have been a support to us. Together we build journalism that is independent, credible and fearless. You can further help us by making a donation. This will mean a lot for our ability to bring you news, perspectives and analysis from the ground so that we can make change together.
Comments are moderated and will be published only after the site moderator’s approval. Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name. Selected comments may also be used in the ‘Letters’ section of the Down To Earth print edition.