Umweltverbrechen multinationaler Konzerne - Greenpeace

Range of damage,
amount of loss
Who is responsible
Legal and/or public
action taken
fisher-folk.
Surface water sources – streams, ponds, wetlands and soil have
been continuously poisoned with Endosulfan and derivatives, DDT
and metabolites and BHC, some of the various toxic chemicals that
are released into the effluent stream 121 .
Deformation has been noticed on certain plants growing by the
effluent stream. The community has also noticed a serious decline
in the population of frogs, fishes, benthic species and some
insects 122 .
Higher incidences of cancer and decrease in lifespan have been
recorded in the areas of immediate contamination 123 .
Preliminary observations suggest that there is a large incidence of
various types of cancer, miscarriage, congenital defects, tympanum
membrane bursts in children, menstrual problems, skin diseases and
respiratory problems in the local population 124 . 80% of the people
are suffering from respiratory diseases according to a local university
(University College- Alwaye) study 125 .
A population of about 20,000 people is directly affected by the
stream that has also contaminated wetlands, water sources, public
stream, vegetation, domestic animals – cows, ducks etc. A
population of at least 100,000 people could be potentially exposed to
these persistent organic pollutants and another one million indirectly
from pollutants migrated into water, soil and through eating fish. The
air and the water of the community are potentially permanently
contaminated 126 .
As a producer of dangerous POPs pesticides, Hindustan Insecticides
Ltd. is responsible for their products and for their highly inadequate
treatment, emissions and discharge into public utility water bodies,
thus causing injure to the surrounding communities and environment.
HIL has violated people’s right to clean air, water and life. The
company also violated the community’s Right to Information and
refuses to comply with the standards, stipulated by Indian law.
Kerala State Pollution Control Board shares responsibility for
allowing the factory to continue operation, despite the fact that their
own analysis has detected contamination in the effluent.
Letters demanding information on process, operation, raw materials
used, contaminants etc were sent by public and the company
refused to share information.
The local community performed a direct action on 20 January, 2002,
and closed the outlet point of the effluent where it reaches the public
121 Testimonies of local residents gathered by Greenpeace with support from VJ Jose (active volunteer), 2002.
122 Ibid.
123 A study by Ms. Preethi, Preliminary survey – Study yet to be published
124 See footnote 5
125 Health Survey Report – Department of Economics, The University College, Alwaye.
126 op cit Toxic Hotspots,1999
65