The issue of scrap metal imports into India literally blew up on 30 September 2004 with an explosion in the Bhushan Steel and Strips factory at Sahibabad, about 20 km from the national capital. The trade unions and human rights, labour and environmental groups visited the site of the tragedy, which claimed the lives of some 36 workers (though the government accepted the company’s version that only ten people had died). These workers were casual workers and were employed with contractors on meager wages.

Though the explosion led to media attention on the hazardous scrap imports, live shells continue to be discovered among scrap metals all over the country. Over the past decade, environment groups have been exposing the import of hazardous waste such as asbestos, lead scrap, zinc ash and electronic waste.


Are They Safe?

The shipments of scrap are consolidated in places like Dubai and UAE, shipping addresses changed from the original, which could be in Europe, the US or now probably in Iraq, and re-labelled into ‘safe’ categories such as ‘mixed metal scrap.’ Screening at the ports too is non-existent. Of the 18 odd ports/container uploading areas in India, only Mumbai has scanning equipment. Less than two per cent of the containers are scanned, and it is well known that Indian importers prefer shredded scrap since it is significantly cheaper to procure. The over 3.675 million metric tonnes of scrap imported is worth over 730 million dollars and comes in over 5,000 containers. At the inland container depot in Tuglakahad, New Delhi alone, over 300 scrap containers arrive daily. Customs officers are geared towards revenue generation and not for screening and stopping imports, unless these are sensitive items like drugs or wildlife articles.

Such large imports of scrap take place in India as Indian buyers outbid others. Lower processing costs, often owing to exploitative labour and environmental standards, enable higher margins and higher bids. For example, Alang in Maharashtra, the world’s largest ship-breaking yard, which supplies over two million tonnes of scrap steel to meet about 20 per cent of India’s requirement, has been in the international spotlight owing to the despicable working conditions there.


Crossing Boundaries

Action at multiple levels is needed to rectify the situation. Firstly, there needs to be strict emphasis on following proper classification. Ratifying international treaties such as the Basel Ban to stop the trans-boundary movement of hazardous wastes, and the Rotterdam Convention, which calls for prior informed consent procedures to be followed, will be a start. Secondly, customs ports need to be properly equipped with scanners and officers trained to ‘look out’ for and identify such consignments. Thirdly, known offenders must be blacklisted, and their international connections tracked. Finally, units that buy and receive such scrap should obtain authorisation especially to ensure they follow proper procedures and safety standards. While workers bear burnt of the situation described above, the Labour Committee appointed by the Ministry of Labour of the current central government does not have any representatives from labour and environmental groups.

Prior to the 1970s, countries of the industrialised North disposed most of these waste within their own borders with scant regard to environmental and health hazards. However, incidents in their own backyard resulted in them cleaning up through implementing strict environmental standards and demonstrating a ‘not-in-my- backyard’ syndrome. In the late 1970s, the world was rocked by news of toxic ships from the US dumping hazardous waste onto African shores. The export of hazardous waste to unsuspecting Southern countries again gained attention in the 1980s when the media and environmentalists the world over, protested over several incidents of such dumping. The world was shamed into waking up and huddled for the next decade to come up with international legislation to stop such trade, popularly called ‘waste imperialism’. Thus conventions such as the Bamako Convention and the Basel Convention came into being.

Yet, today if anything, the waste trade has changed form and become more sophisticated. It is now carried out in other subtle ways. Estimates show that between 300 million and 500 million tonnes of hazardous waste is generated annually the world over, with 90 per cent of it originating in industrialised nations. Much of it finds its way to the South. As regulation is driving dirty plants out of business in the west, their waste instead of being locally contained is exported. In February 2001, an international coalition of environmental and labour organisations managed to prevent 118 tonnes of mercury stockpile from a closed chlor-alkali plant in the US from being exported to India, guised as ‘raw material.’


Effects on Workers

Workers in hazardous conditions suffer the most in developing countries in the absence of proper health and safety standards. Also over 90 per cent of the workers are casual, migrant and not part of any trade union and cannot negotiate any compensation claims. It is common to see workers suffering in asbestos factories, recycling units as well as computer plants. Ship breaking workers are almost 100 per cent casual and have no recourse to justice, even if many of them could face life risks on the job. The Bhopal gas disaster in 1984 showed the double standards corporations employ when they site production bases in the South.

Policy-makers and trade unions have been oblivious of the fact that workplace toxics follow workers to their home. There are fears of job losses if environmental and safety needs are met fear in the economy. The worry about jobs in the context where many profitable companies are trying to eliminate the workers and the economy seems to be generating new jobs that are mostly low paying and part time with few, if any, benefits. Cancer caused by toxics is now an accepted reality. The suffering from diseases caused by toxics entering the environment is on the rise. The assumption about job fear keeping workers and environmental groups away from joining hands in trying to stop in-plant and community pollution is misplaced because if they don’t get involved and accidents do take place, it could lead to more and more job loss. Prevention of toxic exposure is the best job protection that could be found. Coal burning plants spread nitrogen oxides resulting in ground level ozone or smog, sulfur oxides that increase acid rain, and carbon dioxide, which increases health, the greenhouse effect. Although about a third of all mercury released into the environment by human activity comes from coal-fired plants there is no documentation of its ill effects on workers.

Solutions

Industries which are based on hazardous substances and wastes and which cannot be made health and eco-friendly must be banned and dropped as has been done in the case of azo dyes. A jobs transition programme must be worked out with government and industry. Unions should propose a just transition strategy. This also means putting just transition on the bargaining table and make it a strike issue if necessary. It means communities and civil society groups should support the unions in this struggle because they have an important stake in the outcome. It also that means unions need to stop burying their heads in the sand and recognise the need of the hour.

The corporate logic, which is based on the premise that damage to the environment, is not a cost to be carried by the corporation. Either it’s old people and children getting sick or the government paying for clean up the costs is borne by society. In such as situation corporate liability both under torts and criminal law is the only answer with mandatory adherence to polluter pays principle and extended producers responsibility. The only answer lies in taking consideration of both health friendly jobs and a clean environment. The argument such as ‘jobs or environment’ choice is an exercise in sophistry.