Given the fact that chemical safety deserves earnest and urgent attention for vigorous safety implementation activity, which cannot be postponed to a future time, Indian Government’s delaying current actions to avoid and prevent present or anticipated adverse effects is contrary to public interest. This is despite the fact that Indian Government’s policy and the Supreme Court of India has accepted the “polluter pays” principle.

Significant adverse effects resulting from chemical production and use are unacceptable in the interest of public health. To the utter surprise of all participating agencies, Indian Government’s representative has argued against new financial sources to boost chemical safety measures at the Asia-Pacific regional consultation underway in Bangkok, Thailand, 4-7 April 2005, as part of the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (SAICM) process.

Shockingly, the representative from Indian Ministry of Environment and Forests, rejected the idea of allowing wealthy global chemical industry for chemical safety measures. These new funds would have helped India implement chemical management strategies protective of public health and the environment. In contrast, 42 nations of the African region have called for this potentially large funding source in an international meeting in March 2005.

Indian NGOs including Toxics Link and Thanal along with other NGOs from the International POPs Elimination Network (IPEN) have also proposed that a modest tax be placed on the chemical industry to help generate a new source of funds.

“In 1998, the turnover of the global chemical industry was $1.5 trillion US dollars,” commented Papiya Sarkar of Toxics Link, an environmental group based in Delhi. “A modest tax of 0.1% would generate $1.5 billion US dollars to help countries around the world establish chemical safety infrastructure. We believe this application of the polluter pays principle would immensely benefit vulnerable communities by helping the government to implement environment and health policies that require funds to administer.”

The official from Indian Ministry of Environment discarded the idea saying, this small tax of 0.1% would be a huge burden for the Indian chemical industry, “…which was already doing a lot by way of corporate responsibility.” In contrast, the idea was endorsed by a working group composed of industry, government, and public interest NGOs at a regional meeting of 42 African countries.

“While the world moves ahead to secure money for new chemical safety polices, India prefers to safeguard the interests of the chemical industry,” said Jayakumar Chelaton, Thanal, an environmental organisation based in Thiruanthpuram, Kerela.

Interestingly, Indian Ministry of Environment of Forests has once again betrayed what the civil society groups have long alleged: instead of protecting environment, the ministry protects chemical industry unmindful of the detrimental impact. Indian Government will do well to represent its citizens and not the industry to earn profit at the cost of poisoning the food chain and human health.

At issue is a global process called the SAICM called for during the World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002. The goal of SAICM is to minimize adverse effects of chemicals on human health and the environment by 2020. New financial resources are crucial to enact the plan, which would begin in 2006.

Organizations actively participating in SAICM include the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), World Health Organization (WHO), the global chemical industry, and the public interest NGO alliance, International Persistent Organic Pollutants Elimination Network (IPEN), a network of 350 NGOs.