Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 150
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 151
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Warning (512): Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853 [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181]
LATEST NEWS UPDATES | The big endosulfan betrayal by Jay Kumar

The big endosulfan betrayal by Jay Kumar

Share this article Share this article
published Published on May 9, 2011   modified Modified on May 9, 2011

We hear that endosulfan is banned globally and it is against Indian interests and that the European Union and the corporates are behind it. India is a big country and we do not know what happens in one area of the country or how New Delhi is responding to that. So let me try to walk you on this issue. I went to Kasargod as team member of Thanal, a small public interest research group founded in Kannur, a neighbouring district of Kasargod and working out of Thiruvananthapuram. We went to the negotiating committee in March 2000 looking for more information on endosulfan. Since then we have been following the convention closely and demanding a ban on endosulfan.

The first time we raised this slogan was in Geneva in June 2002 and we were happy to take this a message from Kasargod to a global platform, at the Stockholm convention. In 11 years at Stockholm, the environment ministry was willing to talk to NGOs for the first time in 2009. Until then, the official Indian delegation and the pesticide industry were together, often sharing the Indian official desk. In the third conference, Shanmugam Ganesan of the ICC and the staff of a pesticide company read out the Indian position, representing India in the presence of Chand Choudhary of the ministry.

Thanal got into the issue of endosulfan after being engaged by the local community and NGOs to do studies on its health impact. In 2001, we reached a conclusion after considering various papers and consultation with experts that endosulfan caused problems and aerial spraying magnified them to a considerable extent. The findings were presented at state, national and international seminars and workshops.

Since 2005, the zilla panchayat came forward to work with the gram panchayats and NGOs and that helped to get the much-needed state support. The state government could have done more but what worries is the indifference of the union government. They shut the issue in an unethical way. The report from medical experts was evaluated by the ministry of agriculture in 2003 and 2004 and concluded that the experts are wrong.

This is unethical and unscientific as the agriculture experts are not qualified look at human health. There is conflict of interest also. The Banerji committee set up by the agriculture ministry was the second on pesticides, and the first to consider endosulfan. It recommended restricted endosulfan use and said it was not to be used near water bodies and water sources. If this was implemented in time, the damages caused by endosulfan could have been reduced to a considerable extent. The same agriculture ministry is repeatedly evaluating and saying everything is fine and endosulfan is safe. This is a case of conflict of interest.

They approve pesticides, they recommend use, and when there is a complaint, they are asked to evaluate. This is a challenge to agreed principles of governance. The issue of endosulfan got into Stockholm in 2007 when a member country of EU nominated endosulfan as Candidate POP. It was considered and accepted by the fourth meeting of the Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee (POPRC). The fifth meeting of POPRC in 2009 said, “It is concluded that endosulfan is likely, as a result of its long-range environmental transport, to lead to significant adverse human health and environmental effects, such that global action is warranted.” It then looked at the socio-economic impact and availability and a final decision was taken in 2011 to recommend to “the Conference of the Parties to the Stockholm Convention considers listing technical endosulfan (CAS 115-29-7), its related isomers (CAS 959-98-8 and 33213-65-9) and endosulfan sulfate (CAS 1031-07-8) in Annexe A with specific exemptions”.

India raised objections to this and was warned by the chair that they would be reported for bad conduct and lack of respect for the committee. The conference of parties considered this recommendation and a contact group was set up with Qatar chairing. It worked on the recommendations and finally drafted a decision and completed the list of the exemptions and work plan for endosulfan with special emphasis on alternatives. There was further decision on the agenda item under financial resources. It said it “recognises that financial and technical support is required to facilitate the replacement of the use of endosulfan in developing countries”. In other words, when the COP5 adopted these decisions on endosulfan the global ban became real.

I should also say that the Conference of Parties 5 was different. Only public sector company representatives sat in the official desk of India even though the junior members of the delegation were always with the industry. When endosulfan came up for plenary discussion, the Eastern European Group, with 23 member states, and the Latin American and Caribbean Group, with 33 member states, supported the listing but asked for financial support to implementing the phase-out. The African Group, with 53 member states, also agreed to the listing but said there are concerns. The Asian Group, with 53 member states, could not speak with one voice. India asked the group to support the Indian position of not supporting the listing and asking to clarify the errors that were not addressed in previous meetings according to the Indian understanding.

So India spoke and said endosulfan is essential and the only cheap pesticide the country has. It also said it is safe and not proven to be toxic in Indian conditions. Much work is needed in India to get rid of the toxic pesticide that has caused damage to over 10,000 people and killed about1,000 people in Kerala. The preliminary indications are that Karnataka may have the highest number of endosulfan victims. The government is playing to the tunes of the industry but a vigilant media is rising for the public cause and reporting the health problems in Haryana and many more states. We should come together as a country to help. I am proud that as a citizen of India I could act beyond our borders to contribute to the good of society.

Jayakumar C is board member of Thanal.
jayakumar.c@gmail.com


Tehelka, 6 May, 2011, http://www.tehelka.com/story_main49.asp?filename=Ws060511thebig.asp


Related Articles

 

Write Comments

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Video Archives

Archives

share on Facebook
Twitter
RSS
Feedback
Read Later

Contact Form

Please enter security code
      Close