BANI-TWA Public Statement on CoP 9 of UN's Rotterdam Convention, White Chrysotile Asbestos and failure of Indian government
2 views
Skip to first unread message
Gopal Krishna
May 10, 2019, 11:16:05 AM5/10/19
to banasbestosindia
Note: Pdf version of BANI-TWA Public Statement on CoP 9 of UN's
Rotterdam Convention, White Chrysotile Asbestos and failure of Indian
government is attached.
Ban Asbestos Network of India (BANI)
ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA)
PUBLIC STATEMENT
Indian government fails to reconcile its ban on mining of all kinds of
asbestos and trade in asbestos waste by opposing listing of
carcinogenic white chrysotile asbestos mineral fiber in UN list of
hazardous chemicals at the Geneva meeting
India is yet to ban import, manufacture and use of white chrysotile asbestos
India government fails to disassociate itself from the deleterious
influence of asbestos promoters like Russian Federation, Kazakhstan,
Syria, Zimbabwe, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, the International Alliance of
Trade Union Organizations “Chrysotile”, Fiber Cement Product
Manufacturer’s Association of India and Asbestos Cement Product
Manufacturer’s Association
Government must abandon its unscientific and unethical double speak on
hazardous carcinogenic white chrysotile asbestos mineral fiber at the
meetings of UN’s Rotterdam Convention
Is it defensible for the government to take contradictory position
carcinogenic white chrysotile asbestos mineral fiber? Under domestic
law domestic law it is hazardous and carcinogenic but in UN Meetings,
it says it is non- carcinogenic and non-hazardous.
Lack of consensus led to voting at the CoP-9 of Rotterdam Convention
and adoption of new Annexure VII to the Convention for establishing
procedures and mechanisms on compliance, sets precedent for all
existing and proposed UN treaties including the proposed legally
binding Treaty on TNCs and other Business Enterprises with Respect to
Human Rights
10 MAY, 2019: Disregarding the finding and observation with regard to
carcinogenic white chrysotile asbestos mineral fiber published on
National Health Portal (NHP) , Centre for Health Informatics (CHI),
National Institute of Health and Family Welfare (NIHFW), Ministry of
Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW), Government of India, Indian
delegation opposed inclusion of this hazardous mineral fiber in the UN
list of hazardous chemicals. Taking a unscientific position which is
manifestly contrary to the domestic laws and government’s submissions
in the Parliament, the delegation expressed its opposition during the
meeting of 9th conference of parties to the UN’s Rotterdam Convention
on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure (PIC) for Certain Hazardous
Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade (April 29-May 10,
2019) in Geneva.
On 8th May, Rotterdam Convention Secretariat introduced the documents
(RC/COP.9/10; Add.1) with regard to Chrysotile asbestos underling that
that this issue has been on the agenda since the meeting of the Third
Conference of Parties (COP-3) of the Rotterdam Convention. Countries
like Australia, Colombia, Norway, Canada, Peru, Georgia, Uruguay,
Gabon, Nigeria, Bahrain, EU, Japan, Iraq, Togo, Chile, Malaysia, New
Zealand, Moldova, Switzerland, Vanuatu, Republic of Congo, Senegal,
Maldives, Kuwait, Benin, Saudi Arabia and Cameroon supported listing
of chrysotile asbestos in Annex III of the Rotterdam Convention, which
the UN list if hazardous chemicals and pesticides.
Unfortunately, India joined countries and entities like the Russian
Federation, Kazakhstan, Syria, Zimbabwe, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, and the
International Alliance of Trade Union Organizations “Chrysotile”
opposed the listing of chrysotile asbestos in Annex III of the
Rotterdam Convention on the ground that there is lack of new evidence
of effects on human health and the environment. Countries like
Venezuela, Cuba and Iran wished to comprehend the logic of those
countries which are opposed to listing of chrysotile asbestos and
sought discussion on it.
The opponents including India disregarded incontrovertible conclusive
scientific evidence provided by the World Health Organization (WHO)
pointing out how all forms of asbestos cause cancer in humans. The
International Labour Organization (ILO) observed that ILO’s Asbestos
Convention should not be used to justify continued use of asbestos
because it was never intended for promotion of use of asbestos.
It is quite apparent that Indian government delegation acted under the
tremendous influence of the Fiber Cement Product Manufacturer’s
Association of India (FCMPAI), a cartel of asbestos companies which
opposed listing of white chrysotile asbestos citing discredited
national governmental studies which admittedly, Asbestos Cement
Products Manufacturers Association had co-sponsored, showing no
negative health impacts. An entity called “Workers of Kazakhstan”, an
apparent front of asbestos companies wanted chrysotile variety of
asbestos to be treated differently.
As a consequence of the opposition from the seven countries and the
asbestos companies, the consideration of listing of chrysotile variety
of asbestos in the UN list of hazardous chemicals has been deferred
for the 10th meeting of Conference of Parties of the Rotterdam
Convention.
The inter-ministerial Indian delegation at the COP 9 failed to factor
in the publicly and officially stated stance of National Health
Portal, Government of India with regard to all forms of asbestos
including white chrysotile asbestos. It states that “All forms of
asbestos (chrysotile, crocidolite, amosite, tremolite, actinolite and
anthophyllite) are in use because of their extraordinary tensile
strength, poor heat conduction, and relative resistance to chemical
attack. Chemically, asbestos minerals are silicate compounds, meaning
they contain atoms of silicon and oxygen in their molecular structure.
All forms of asbestos are carcinogenic to humans. Exposure to asbestos
(including chrysotile) causes cancer of the lung, larynx, and ovaries,
and also mesothelioma (a cancer of the pleural and peritoneal
linings). Asbestos exposure is also responsible for other diseases
such as asbestosis (fibrosis of the lungs), and plaques, thickening
and effusion in the pleura.” It observes that “Exposure to asbestos
occurs through inhalation of fibers in air in the working environment,
ambient air in the vicinity of point sources such as factories
handling asbestos, or indoor air in housing and buildings containing
friable asbestos materials.” The delegation included India’s official
contact point, Manoj Kumar Gangeya, Director, Hazardous Substances
Management Division, Union Ministry of Environment, Forests a& Climate
Change.
The official brief for the Indian delegation to the meeting of
Rotterdam Convention remains unchanged. Its brief stated that “The
implication of listing of chemicals is rise in trade cost” and delay
in import/export of hazardous chemicals. This is far from the truth.
In its myopia, the brief does not factor in the health cost incurred
due unrestricted trade in hazardous chemicals.
In a 29 page long “Draft decision guidance document” on Rotterdam
Convention – Operation of the Prior Informed Consent procedure for
banned or severely restricted chemicals” for “Inclusion of chrysotile
asbestos in Annex III to the Rotterdam Convention” is on the agenda.
(Item 5 (b) of the provisional agenda, Matters related to the
implementation of the Convention: listing of chemicals in Annex III to
the Convention). As per the Draft decision guidance document,
“Chrysotile (serpentine forms of asbestos) is included in the PIC
procedure as an industrial chemical. It is listed on the basis of the
final regulatory actions to ban or severely restrict its use as
notified by Australia, Chile and the European Community (EC).”
Chrysotile is by far the predominant asbestos fibre consumed today
(94% of the world’s production) and is processed into products such as
friction materials, asbestos-cement, cement pipe and sheet, gaskets
and seals, paper and textiles. The asbestos-cement industry is by far
the largest user of chrysotile fibres, accounting for about 85% of all
use. Sadly, the Draft decision guidance document has not been
approved.
It may be recalled that at the very first meeting in 2005, the
Chemical Review Committee (CRC) under the Rotterdam Convention on the
Prior Informed Consent (PIC) Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals
and Pesticides in International Trade, the CRC agreed to recommend to
the Conference of the Parties that Chrysotile Asbestos should be
listed in Annex III of the Rotterdam Convention. The CRC is a group of
government designated experts established in line with Article 18 of
the Convention that evaluates candidate chemicals for possible
inclusion in the Convention. Chrysotile (serpentine forms of asbestos)
is included in the PIC procedure as an industrial chemical.
Given the fact that the need for consensus has been used as a tool for
blocking progress on the listing of hazardous chemicals in the UN list
of hazardous chemicals and given the fact that all previous efforts to
achieve consensus has been exhausted, Switzerland called for a vote to
adopt a new Annexure VII to the Rotterdam Convention for establishing
procedures and mechanisms on compliance. The voting resulted in with
120 parties supporting the proposal and 6 parties opposing it.
Countries like Brazil and Russian Federation opposed it. Countries
like Chine and Trinidad and Tobago, Venezuela, Pakistan, Cuba, Qatar,
Argentina and Iran expressed their concerns regarding this precedent
in decision making. The proceedings of the 9th meeting of Conference
of Parties Rotterdam convention have been recorded in the Earth
Negotiations Bulletin (ENB) of the International Institute for
Sustainable Development (IISD).
The proposed Annex VII of the Rotterdam Convention allows parties who
do not agree to a compliance mechanism to opt out. This predicament is
extremely dangerous for all the existing and proposed UN agreements
and treaties including the proposed legally binding Treaty on TNCs and
other Business Enterprises with Respect to Human Rights ahead of the
5th Session of the UN Open-Ended Inter Governmental Working Group
(OEIGWG) to elaborate an international legally binding instrument to
regulate within the scope of international human rights law and the
activities of transnational corporations and other business
enterprises in Geneva during 12-19 October, 2019 in Geneva. It is a
universal fact that exposing human beings to asbestos fibers
constitutes violation of human rights by asbestos companies. If a
mandatory UN treaty on TNCs and other Business Enterprises gets
adopted and comes into force asbestos based companies can be held
liable both under civil and criminal law but before that happens
Government of India has a duty to protect the human rights and public
health of present and future generation of Indians by disassociating
itself from the seven countries that are promoting white chrysotile
asbestos unmindful of its human and environmental cost.
So far Government of India has ignored Supreme Court’s order of 27
January, 1995 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 206 of 1986. The Court
observed: “The development of the carcinogenic risk due to asbestos or
any other carcinogenic agent, does not require a continuous exposure.
The cancer risk does not cease when the exposure to the carcinogenic
agent ceases, but rather the individual carries the increased risk for
the remaining years of life. The exposure to asbestos and the
resultant long tragic chain of adverse medical, legal and societal
consequences, remains the legal and social responsibility of the
employer or the producer not to endanger the workmen or the community
of the society. He or it is not absolved of the inherent
responsibility to the exposed workmen or the society at large. They
have the responsibility legal, moral and social to provide protective
measures to the workmen and to the public or all those who are exposed
to the harmful consequences of their products. Mere adoption of
regulations for the enforcement has no real meaning and efficacy
without die professional, industrial and governmental resources and
legal and moral determination to implement such regulations.”
Rotterdam Convention’s PIC procedure and the recommendations of CRC
are consistent with Supreme Court’s verdict.
Given the fact that mining of asbestos is rightly banned in India
because of its hazardous nature, a member of Asbestos Cement Products
Manufacturers Association (ACPMA) has revealed to the government and
the public that the chrysotile type asbestos fiber “will be imported
from Brazil , Canada and Russia.” It is the only kind that remains to
be totally banned in India. Now the fact is that Brazil and Canada
have banned asbestos but India has emerged as the biggest consumer of
Russian white asbestos although India has technically banned mining of
all kinds of asbestos and trade of asbestos waste (dust and fibers).
All the central ministries and state governments were supposed to
incorporate specific directions of the Court given in its verdict of
27 January 1995 and reiterated on 21 January 2011 with regard to fresh
ILO Resolution of June 14, 2006 introducing a ban on all mining,
manufacture, recycling and use of all forms of asbestos besides WHO‟s
resolution of 2005 seeking elimination of future use of asbestos but
it has been ignored so far. The Court referred to the In the
"Encyclopaedia of Occupational Health and Safety", Vol-1, published by
International Labour Office, Geneva, the latest 4th Edition, 1991 that
provides definition of asbestos-“Its Pathology has been stated at page
188 in Vol-1, which is as follows:- "The retained fibres in the
alveolar region are 3 um or less in diameter but may be up to 200 um
long. Animal experiments strongly point to the longer fibres, 5 um and
over, as being much more fibrogenic than shorter fibres. A proportion
of the longer fibres, especially amphiboles, become coated with an
iron Protein complex producing the drumstick appearance of asbestos
bodies. All types of asbestos cause similar fibrosis” (Supreme Court,
1995). Drawing on the Encyclopedia, it recorded that “The signs and
symptoms of asbestosis are similar to those caused by other diffuse
interstitial fibroses of the lung. Increased breathlessness on
exertion is usually the first symptom, sometimes associated with
aching or transient sharp pains in the chest.” The Supreme Court has
recorded that “whenever asbestos fibres are used for insulation and
other purposes, the possibility of asbestosis among workers due to
inhalation of asbestos fibres cannot be ruled out” (Supreme Court,
2005). It noted that these materials are highly dangerous to human
health, if inhaled or if contacted with skin surface.
Admittedly, Government of India’s National Health Portal states: “The
burden of asbestos-related diseases is still rising, even in countries
that banned the use of asbestos in the early 1990s. Because of the
long latency periods attached to the asbestos related diseases,
stopping the use of asbestos now will result in a decrease in the
number of asbestos-related deaths only after a number of decades.
There is no safe use of asbestos and no safe limits set by WHO, ILO
(International labour organization)” . It discloses that “The
prevalence of asbestosis in four cement factories (Ahmadabad,
Hyderabad, Coimbatore and Mumbai) varied from 3% to 5%” and “In
asbestos textile industry prevalence of asbestosis was 9% in workers
having less than 10 years exposure, in contrast to the reported
average duration of over 20 years” (National Health Portal,
Government of India).
Notably, in a reply to the Parliament, Union Minister of Health and
Family welfare stated that “The Ministry of Mines has informed that
the Grant of fresh mining leases and renewal of existing mining leases
for Asbestos are presently banned in the country on Health Grounds”
(Union Ministry of Health and Family welfare, 2014). He also shared
the findings of the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), Union
Ministry of Health and Family welfare which has “informed that major
health hazards of asbestos include cancer of lung, mesothelioma of
pleura and peritoneum and specific fibrous disease of lung known as
asbestosis. All types of asbestos fibers are responsible for human
mortality and morbidity….Directorate General Factory Advice Service
and Labour Institutes, (DGFASLI) under Ministry of Labour & Employment
has intimated data of workers suffering from Asbestosis in factories
registered under the Factories Act, 1948.As per the information
provided by DGFASLI, it is informed that 21 no. of Asbestosis cases
were reported in Gujarat in 2010 and 2 cases in Maharashtra in the
year 2012”. This has been shared by the Union Minister for Health and
Family Welfare in a written reply to the Parliament and released by
Press Information Bureau, Government of India.
India continues to ignore that the Schedule I of Hazardous Wastes
(Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008 under
the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 provides the List of Processes
Generating Hazardous Wastes. The list has 36 processes generating
hazardous wastes. It must be also noted that Production of Asbestos or
Asbestos containing materials which generates Asbestos-containing
residues, Discarded Asbestos, Dust/particulates from exhaust gas
treatment is at the serial no. 15 in the list. So far your ministry
has ignored that Schedule VI of Hazardous Wastes (Management, Handling
and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008 under the Environment
(Protection) Act, 1986 that provides List of Hazardous Wastes
Prohibited for Import and Export. The list had 30 such hazardous
wastes which are also covered under UN‟s Basel Convention on
Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal. The
list mentions Waste Asbestos (Dust and Fibers) at serial no. 16 with
its Basel No. A2050. It is noteworthy that given the fact that all
asbestos based products have a life span, it is natural that all
asbestos based products are potential asbestos wastes.
It may be recalled that on June 22, 2011 Indian delegation led by Mira
Mehrishi, Additional Secretary, Government of India and the head of
the Indian delegation had supported the listing of Chrysotile asbestos
as a hazardous chemical substance at the fifth Conference of Parties
to the Rotterdam Convention amidst standing ovation. Under the
influence of foreign and domestic asbestos companies, India reversed
its position and adopted an unscientific and unethical stance.
Even under Factories Act, 1948, the List of 29 industries involving
hazardous processes is given under Section 2 (cb), Schedule First,
asbestos is mentioned at serial no. 24. The Act defines "hazardous
process" as “any process or activity in relation to an industry
specified in the First Schedule where, unless special care is taken,
raw materials used therein or the intermediate or finished products,
bye-products, wastes or effluents thereof would--(i) cause material
impairment to the health of the persons engaged in or connected
therewith, or (ii) result in the pollution of the general environment”
. This leaves no doubt that asbestos is a hazardous substance.
So far governments have ignored the fact that the United Nations
Committee of Experts on the Transportation of Dangerous Goods
classifies Chrysotile Asbestos in Hazard Class and Packing Group, UN
number 2590, Class 9 – Miscellaneous dangerous goods and articles. Its
International Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG) Code is UN No: 2590:
Class or division 9.
Government is acting as if its left arm does not know what the right
arm is doing. How can it reconcile its position in UN meeting with its
current phasing out of asbestos roofs from some 8000 railway stations
across the country? Taking note of hazards from asbestos of all kinds,
new rules have been framed in Maharashtra as a step to make the state
free of asbestos. It is significant that bitter protests of villagers
led to the cancellation of asbestos based factories in Bhojpur,
Muzaffarpur, Vaishali, West Champaran and Madhubani in Bihar.
Given the fact that Department of Chemicals and Petrochemicals is the
Designated National Authority (DNA) for industrial chemicals under the
Rotterdam Convention on Prior Informed Consent Procedures (PIC) that
entered into force on 24th February, 2004, which is a legally binding
instrument, it should be rescued from the vice like grip of the
foreign and domestic asbestos companies. The parties to the Convention
are required to communicate their import policy for these chemicals to
the PIC Secretariat. The exporting Party has to provide the export
notification to the importing Party in respect of banned or severely
restricted chemicals in the importing country. The export
notifications received from other Parties for industrial chemicals are
examined by Department of Chemicals and Petrochemicals, being the DNA
for industrial chemicals, and acknowledgment/ reply is sent to the DNA
of the exporting country. How can India deprive itself of this
procedure with regard to import of hazardous and carcinogenic white
chrysotile asbestos?
While there has been failure in listing of white chrysotile asbestos
in the UN list of hazardous chemicals, the fact remains nothing stops
Government of India to comply with Supreme Court’s verdict of 27th
January, 1995 by adopting ILO resolution of 2006 which seeks
elimination of all kinds of asbestos for the protection of human
health.
For Details: Gopal Krishna, LL.B., Ph.D, Ban Asbestos Network of India
(BANI)*/ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA), E-mail: krishn...@gmail.com,
Mb: 9818089660,
Web: www.asbestosfreeindia.org
*Ban Asbestos Network of India (BANI) has been working for freedom
from asbestos related diseases since 2000.
--
....years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up
my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth. I said
then, and I say now, that while there is a lower class, I am in it, and
while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in
prison, I am not free.
-------Eugene Debs, five times Presidential candidate of USA & author of *Walls
and Bars*
"We may admire what he does, but we despise what he is."-referring
to humans who act mechanically on instructions
-------Wilhelm von Humboldt, 1792
Rotterdam Convention, White Chrysotile Asbestos and failure of Indian
government is attached.
Ban Asbestos Network of India (BANI)
ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA)
PUBLIC STATEMENT
Indian government fails to reconcile its ban on mining of all kinds of
asbestos and trade in asbestos waste by opposing listing of
carcinogenic white chrysotile asbestos mineral fiber in UN list of
hazardous chemicals at the Geneva meeting
India is yet to ban import, manufacture and use of white chrysotile asbestos
India government fails to disassociate itself from the deleterious
influence of asbestos promoters like Russian Federation, Kazakhstan,
Syria, Zimbabwe, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, the International Alliance of
Trade Union Organizations “Chrysotile”, Fiber Cement Product
Manufacturer’s Association of India and Asbestos Cement Product
Manufacturer’s Association
Government must abandon its unscientific and unethical double speak on
hazardous carcinogenic white chrysotile asbestos mineral fiber at the
meetings of UN’s Rotterdam Convention
Is it defensible for the government to take contradictory position
carcinogenic white chrysotile asbestos mineral fiber? Under domestic
law domestic law it is hazardous and carcinogenic but in UN Meetings,
it says it is non- carcinogenic and non-hazardous.
Lack of consensus led to voting at the CoP-9 of Rotterdam Convention
and adoption of new Annexure VII to the Convention for establishing
procedures and mechanisms on compliance, sets precedent for all
existing and proposed UN treaties including the proposed legally
binding Treaty on TNCs and other Business Enterprises with Respect to
Human Rights
10 MAY, 2019: Disregarding the finding and observation with regard to
carcinogenic white chrysotile asbestos mineral fiber published on
National Health Portal (NHP) , Centre for Health Informatics (CHI),
National Institute of Health and Family Welfare (NIHFW), Ministry of
Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW), Government of India, Indian
delegation opposed inclusion of this hazardous mineral fiber in the UN
list of hazardous chemicals. Taking a unscientific position which is
manifestly contrary to the domestic laws and government’s submissions
in the Parliament, the delegation expressed its opposition during the
meeting of 9th conference of parties to the UN’s Rotterdam Convention
on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure (PIC) for Certain Hazardous
Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade (April 29-May 10,
2019) in Geneva.
On 8th May, Rotterdam Convention Secretariat introduced the documents
(RC/COP.9/10; Add.1) with regard to Chrysotile asbestos underling that
that this issue has been on the agenda since the meeting of the Third
Conference of Parties (COP-3) of the Rotterdam Convention. Countries
like Australia, Colombia, Norway, Canada, Peru, Georgia, Uruguay,
Gabon, Nigeria, Bahrain, EU, Japan, Iraq, Togo, Chile, Malaysia, New
Zealand, Moldova, Switzerland, Vanuatu, Republic of Congo, Senegal,
Maldives, Kuwait, Benin, Saudi Arabia and Cameroon supported listing
of chrysotile asbestos in Annex III of the Rotterdam Convention, which
the UN list if hazardous chemicals and pesticides.
Unfortunately, India joined countries and entities like the Russian
Federation, Kazakhstan, Syria, Zimbabwe, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, and the
International Alliance of Trade Union Organizations “Chrysotile”
opposed the listing of chrysotile asbestos in Annex III of the
Rotterdam Convention on the ground that there is lack of new evidence
of effects on human health and the environment. Countries like
Venezuela, Cuba and Iran wished to comprehend the logic of those
countries which are opposed to listing of chrysotile asbestos and
sought discussion on it.
The opponents including India disregarded incontrovertible conclusive
scientific evidence provided by the World Health Organization (WHO)
pointing out how all forms of asbestos cause cancer in humans. The
International Labour Organization (ILO) observed that ILO’s Asbestos
Convention should not be used to justify continued use of asbestos
because it was never intended for promotion of use of asbestos.
It is quite apparent that Indian government delegation acted under the
tremendous influence of the Fiber Cement Product Manufacturer’s
Association of India (FCMPAI), a cartel of asbestos companies which
opposed listing of white chrysotile asbestos citing discredited
national governmental studies which admittedly, Asbestos Cement
Products Manufacturers Association had co-sponsored, showing no
negative health impacts. An entity called “Workers of Kazakhstan”, an
apparent front of asbestos companies wanted chrysotile variety of
asbestos to be treated differently.
As a consequence of the opposition from the seven countries and the
asbestos companies, the consideration of listing of chrysotile variety
of asbestos in the UN list of hazardous chemicals has been deferred
for the 10th meeting of Conference of Parties of the Rotterdam
Convention.
The inter-ministerial Indian delegation at the COP 9 failed to factor
in the publicly and officially stated stance of National Health
Portal, Government of India with regard to all forms of asbestos
including white chrysotile asbestos. It states that “All forms of
asbestos (chrysotile, crocidolite, amosite, tremolite, actinolite and
anthophyllite) are in use because of their extraordinary tensile
strength, poor heat conduction, and relative resistance to chemical
attack. Chemically, asbestos minerals are silicate compounds, meaning
they contain atoms of silicon and oxygen in their molecular structure.
All forms of asbestos are carcinogenic to humans. Exposure to asbestos
(including chrysotile) causes cancer of the lung, larynx, and ovaries,
and also mesothelioma (a cancer of the pleural and peritoneal
linings). Asbestos exposure is also responsible for other diseases
such as asbestosis (fibrosis of the lungs), and plaques, thickening
and effusion in the pleura.” It observes that “Exposure to asbestos
occurs through inhalation of fibers in air in the working environment,
ambient air in the vicinity of point sources such as factories
handling asbestos, or indoor air in housing and buildings containing
friable asbestos materials.” The delegation included India’s official
contact point, Manoj Kumar Gangeya, Director, Hazardous Substances
Management Division, Union Ministry of Environment, Forests a& Climate
Change.
The official brief for the Indian delegation to the meeting of
Rotterdam Convention remains unchanged. Its brief stated that “The
implication of listing of chemicals is rise in trade cost” and delay
in import/export of hazardous chemicals. This is far from the truth.
In its myopia, the brief does not factor in the health cost incurred
due unrestricted trade in hazardous chemicals.
In a 29 page long “Draft decision guidance document” on Rotterdam
Convention – Operation of the Prior Informed Consent procedure for
banned or severely restricted chemicals” for “Inclusion of chrysotile
asbestos in Annex III to the Rotterdam Convention” is on the agenda.
(Item 5 (b) of the provisional agenda, Matters related to the
implementation of the Convention: listing of chemicals in Annex III to
the Convention). As per the Draft decision guidance document,
“Chrysotile (serpentine forms of asbestos) is included in the PIC
procedure as an industrial chemical. It is listed on the basis of the
final regulatory actions to ban or severely restrict its use as
notified by Australia, Chile and the European Community (EC).”
Chrysotile is by far the predominant asbestos fibre consumed today
(94% of the world’s production) and is processed into products such as
friction materials, asbestos-cement, cement pipe and sheet, gaskets
and seals, paper and textiles. The asbestos-cement industry is by far
the largest user of chrysotile fibres, accounting for about 85% of all
use. Sadly, the Draft decision guidance document has not been
approved.
It may be recalled that at the very first meeting in 2005, the
Chemical Review Committee (CRC) under the Rotterdam Convention on the
Prior Informed Consent (PIC) Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals
and Pesticides in International Trade, the CRC agreed to recommend to
the Conference of the Parties that Chrysotile Asbestos should be
listed in Annex III of the Rotterdam Convention. The CRC is a group of
government designated experts established in line with Article 18 of
the Convention that evaluates candidate chemicals for possible
inclusion in the Convention. Chrysotile (serpentine forms of asbestos)
is included in the PIC procedure as an industrial chemical.
Given the fact that the need for consensus has been used as a tool for
blocking progress on the listing of hazardous chemicals in the UN list
of hazardous chemicals and given the fact that all previous efforts to
achieve consensus has been exhausted, Switzerland called for a vote to
adopt a new Annexure VII to the Rotterdam Convention for establishing
procedures and mechanisms on compliance. The voting resulted in with
120 parties supporting the proposal and 6 parties opposing it.
Countries like Brazil and Russian Federation opposed it. Countries
like Chine and Trinidad and Tobago, Venezuela, Pakistan, Cuba, Qatar,
Argentina and Iran expressed their concerns regarding this precedent
in decision making. The proceedings of the 9th meeting of Conference
of Parties Rotterdam convention have been recorded in the Earth
Negotiations Bulletin (ENB) of the International Institute for
Sustainable Development (IISD).
The proposed Annex VII of the Rotterdam Convention allows parties who
do not agree to a compliance mechanism to opt out. This predicament is
extremely dangerous for all the existing and proposed UN agreements
and treaties including the proposed legally binding Treaty on TNCs and
other Business Enterprises with Respect to Human Rights ahead of the
5th Session of the UN Open-Ended Inter Governmental Working Group
(OEIGWG) to elaborate an international legally binding instrument to
regulate within the scope of international human rights law and the
activities of transnational corporations and other business
enterprises in Geneva during 12-19 October, 2019 in Geneva. It is a
universal fact that exposing human beings to asbestos fibers
constitutes violation of human rights by asbestos companies. If a
mandatory UN treaty on TNCs and other Business Enterprises gets
adopted and comes into force asbestos based companies can be held
liable both under civil and criminal law but before that happens
Government of India has a duty to protect the human rights and public
health of present and future generation of Indians by disassociating
itself from the seven countries that are promoting white chrysotile
asbestos unmindful of its human and environmental cost.
So far Government of India has ignored Supreme Court’s order of 27
January, 1995 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 206 of 1986. The Court
observed: “The development of the carcinogenic risk due to asbestos or
any other carcinogenic agent, does not require a continuous exposure.
The cancer risk does not cease when the exposure to the carcinogenic
agent ceases, but rather the individual carries the increased risk for
the remaining years of life. The exposure to asbestos and the
resultant long tragic chain of adverse medical, legal and societal
consequences, remains the legal and social responsibility of the
employer or the producer not to endanger the workmen or the community
of the society. He or it is not absolved of the inherent
responsibility to the exposed workmen or the society at large. They
have the responsibility legal, moral and social to provide protective
measures to the workmen and to the public or all those who are exposed
to the harmful consequences of their products. Mere adoption of
regulations for the enforcement has no real meaning and efficacy
without die professional, industrial and governmental resources and
legal and moral determination to implement such regulations.”
Rotterdam Convention’s PIC procedure and the recommendations of CRC
are consistent with Supreme Court’s verdict.
Given the fact that mining of asbestos is rightly banned in India
because of its hazardous nature, a member of Asbestos Cement Products
Manufacturers Association (ACPMA) has revealed to the government and
the public that the chrysotile type asbestos fiber “will be imported
from Brazil , Canada and Russia.” It is the only kind that remains to
be totally banned in India. Now the fact is that Brazil and Canada
have banned asbestos but India has emerged as the biggest consumer of
Russian white asbestos although India has technically banned mining of
all kinds of asbestos and trade of asbestos waste (dust and fibers).
All the central ministries and state governments were supposed to
incorporate specific directions of the Court given in its verdict of
27 January 1995 and reiterated on 21 January 2011 with regard to fresh
ILO Resolution of June 14, 2006 introducing a ban on all mining,
manufacture, recycling and use of all forms of asbestos besides WHO‟s
resolution of 2005 seeking elimination of future use of asbestos but
it has been ignored so far. The Court referred to the In the
"Encyclopaedia of Occupational Health and Safety", Vol-1, published by
International Labour Office, Geneva, the latest 4th Edition, 1991 that
provides definition of asbestos-“Its Pathology has been stated at page
188 in Vol-1, which is as follows:- "The retained fibres in the
alveolar region are 3 um or less in diameter but may be up to 200 um
long. Animal experiments strongly point to the longer fibres, 5 um and
over, as being much more fibrogenic than shorter fibres. A proportion
of the longer fibres, especially amphiboles, become coated with an
iron Protein complex producing the drumstick appearance of asbestos
bodies. All types of asbestos cause similar fibrosis” (Supreme Court,
1995). Drawing on the Encyclopedia, it recorded that “The signs and
symptoms of asbestosis are similar to those caused by other diffuse
interstitial fibroses of the lung. Increased breathlessness on
exertion is usually the first symptom, sometimes associated with
aching or transient sharp pains in the chest.” The Supreme Court has
recorded that “whenever asbestos fibres are used for insulation and
other purposes, the possibility of asbestosis among workers due to
inhalation of asbestos fibres cannot be ruled out” (Supreme Court,
2005). It noted that these materials are highly dangerous to human
health, if inhaled or if contacted with skin surface.
Admittedly, Government of India’s National Health Portal states: “The
burden of asbestos-related diseases is still rising, even in countries
that banned the use of asbestos in the early 1990s. Because of the
long latency periods attached to the asbestos related diseases,
stopping the use of asbestos now will result in a decrease in the
number of asbestos-related deaths only after a number of decades.
There is no safe use of asbestos and no safe limits set by WHO, ILO
(International labour organization)” . It discloses that “The
prevalence of asbestosis in four cement factories (Ahmadabad,
Hyderabad, Coimbatore and Mumbai) varied from 3% to 5%” and “In
asbestos textile industry prevalence of asbestosis was 9% in workers
having less than 10 years exposure, in contrast to the reported
average duration of over 20 years” (National Health Portal,
Government of India).
Notably, in a reply to the Parliament, Union Minister of Health and
Family welfare stated that “The Ministry of Mines has informed that
the Grant of fresh mining leases and renewal of existing mining leases
for Asbestos are presently banned in the country on Health Grounds”
(Union Ministry of Health and Family welfare, 2014). He also shared
the findings of the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), Union
Ministry of Health and Family welfare which has “informed that major
health hazards of asbestos include cancer of lung, mesothelioma of
pleura and peritoneum and specific fibrous disease of lung known as
asbestosis. All types of asbestos fibers are responsible for human
mortality and morbidity….Directorate General Factory Advice Service
and Labour Institutes, (DGFASLI) under Ministry of Labour & Employment
has intimated data of workers suffering from Asbestosis in factories
registered under the Factories Act, 1948.As per the information
provided by DGFASLI, it is informed that 21 no. of Asbestosis cases
were reported in Gujarat in 2010 and 2 cases in Maharashtra in the
year 2012”. This has been shared by the Union Minister for Health and
Family Welfare in a written reply to the Parliament and released by
Press Information Bureau, Government of India.
India continues to ignore that the Schedule I of Hazardous Wastes
(Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008 under
the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 provides the List of Processes
Generating Hazardous Wastes. The list has 36 processes generating
hazardous wastes. It must be also noted that Production of Asbestos or
Asbestos containing materials which generates Asbestos-containing
residues, Discarded Asbestos, Dust/particulates from exhaust gas
treatment is at the serial no. 15 in the list. So far your ministry
has ignored that Schedule VI of Hazardous Wastes (Management, Handling
and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008 under the Environment
(Protection) Act, 1986 that provides List of Hazardous Wastes
Prohibited for Import and Export. The list had 30 such hazardous
wastes which are also covered under UN‟s Basel Convention on
Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal. The
list mentions Waste Asbestos (Dust and Fibers) at serial no. 16 with
its Basel No. A2050. It is noteworthy that given the fact that all
asbestos based products have a life span, it is natural that all
asbestos based products are potential asbestos wastes.
It may be recalled that on June 22, 2011 Indian delegation led by Mira
Mehrishi, Additional Secretary, Government of India and the head of
the Indian delegation had supported the listing of Chrysotile asbestos
as a hazardous chemical substance at the fifth Conference of Parties
to the Rotterdam Convention amidst standing ovation. Under the
influence of foreign and domestic asbestos companies, India reversed
its position and adopted an unscientific and unethical stance.
Even under Factories Act, 1948, the List of 29 industries involving
hazardous processes is given under Section 2 (cb), Schedule First,
asbestos is mentioned at serial no. 24. The Act defines "hazardous
process" as “any process or activity in relation to an industry
specified in the First Schedule where, unless special care is taken,
raw materials used therein or the intermediate or finished products,
bye-products, wastes or effluents thereof would--(i) cause material
impairment to the health of the persons engaged in or connected
therewith, or (ii) result in the pollution of the general environment”
. This leaves no doubt that asbestos is a hazardous substance.
So far governments have ignored the fact that the United Nations
Committee of Experts on the Transportation of Dangerous Goods
classifies Chrysotile Asbestos in Hazard Class and Packing Group, UN
number 2590, Class 9 – Miscellaneous dangerous goods and articles. Its
International Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG) Code is UN No: 2590:
Class or division 9.
Government is acting as if its left arm does not know what the right
arm is doing. How can it reconcile its position in UN meeting with its
current phasing out of asbestos roofs from some 8000 railway stations
across the country? Taking note of hazards from asbestos of all kinds,
new rules have been framed in Maharashtra as a step to make the state
free of asbestos. It is significant that bitter protests of villagers
led to the cancellation of asbestos based factories in Bhojpur,
Muzaffarpur, Vaishali, West Champaran and Madhubani in Bihar.
Given the fact that Department of Chemicals and Petrochemicals is the
Designated National Authority (DNA) for industrial chemicals under the
Rotterdam Convention on Prior Informed Consent Procedures (PIC) that
entered into force on 24th February, 2004, which is a legally binding
instrument, it should be rescued from the vice like grip of the
foreign and domestic asbestos companies. The parties to the Convention
are required to communicate their import policy for these chemicals to
the PIC Secretariat. The exporting Party has to provide the export
notification to the importing Party in respect of banned or severely
restricted chemicals in the importing country. The export
notifications received from other Parties for industrial chemicals are
examined by Department of Chemicals and Petrochemicals, being the DNA
for industrial chemicals, and acknowledgment/ reply is sent to the DNA
of the exporting country. How can India deprive itself of this
procedure with regard to import of hazardous and carcinogenic white
chrysotile asbestos?
While there has been failure in listing of white chrysotile asbestos
in the UN list of hazardous chemicals, the fact remains nothing stops
Government of India to comply with Supreme Court’s verdict of 27th
January, 1995 by adopting ILO resolution of 2006 which seeks
elimination of all kinds of asbestos for the protection of human
health.
For Details: Gopal Krishna, LL.B., Ph.D, Ban Asbestos Network of India
(BANI)*/ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA), E-mail: krishn...@gmail.com,
Mb: 9818089660,
Web: www.asbestosfreeindia.org
*Ban Asbestos Network of India (BANI) has been working for freedom
from asbestos related diseases since 2000.
--
....years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up
my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth. I said
then, and I say now, that while there is a lower class, I am in it, and
while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in
prison, I am not free.
-------Eugene Debs, five times Presidential candidate of USA & author of *Walls
and Bars*
"We may admire what he does, but we despise what he is."-referring
to humans who act mechanically on instructions
-------Wilhelm von Humboldt, 1792
Gopal Krishna
May 12, 2019, 10:41:31 PM5/12/19
to Yvonne Waterman, banasbestosindia
Dear Yvonne,
--
Thank you acknowleging the collective efforts of all who are altruistically pursuing the struggle for asbestos free future.
warm regards
Gopal Krishna
Ban Asbestos Network of India (BANI)
ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA)
Mb:9818089660
www.toxicswatch.org
On Friday, May 10, 2019, Yvonne Waterman <wate...@watermanlegal.nl> wrote:
On Friday, May 10, 2019, Yvonne Waterman <wate...@watermanlegal.nl> wrote:
Dear Gopal,Thank you for this excellent report and for yours and your colleagues' considerable efforts in Geneva, to represent the interests of the untold many.Best wishes from Holland,Yvonne
Waterman Legal Consultancy
mr.dr. Y.R.K. Waterman, directeur / Y.R.K. Waterman Ph.D. LL.M., Director
Kamperfoeliestraat 14
4725 AV Wouwse Plantage
Nederland / the Netherlands
www.watermanlegal.nl
wate...@watermanlegal.nl
https://nl.linkedin.com/in/yvonnewaterman
+31 (0) 6-819 189 43Op vr 10 mei 2019 om 17:20 schreef Gopal Krishna <krishn...@gmail.com>:
--
Gopal Krishna
....years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth. I said then, and I say now, that while there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free.
-------Eugene Debs, five times Presidential candidate of USA & author of Walls and Bars
Gopal Krishna
May 12, 2019, 10:58:09 PM5/12/19
to Richard Lemen, banasbestosindia
Dear Richard,
--
Thank you for your message. The governments of seven countries which are opposing listing of
Chrysotile are actually not really "seven".
My sense is that countries like Syria, Pakistan, India and Kyrgyzstan have been blackmailed/coerced to support the position of Russia, Kazakhstan and Zimbabwe. For instance, i learnt from Sri Lankan officials at a UN meeting that they had banned
Chrysotile but Russia coerced to undo their ban by threatening to rescind Russian purchase orders for Sri Lankan tea saying it is contaminated with pesticides!
Thank you for sharing the pictures from ADAO conference in Washington!
regards
Gopal Krishna
Ban Asbestos Network of India (BANI)
ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA)
New Delhi
Mb: 9818089660
Twitter:@krishna1715
www.toxicswatch.org
On Friday, May 10, 2019, Richard Lemen <ric...@ralemen.org> wrote:
On Friday, May 10, 2019, Richard Lemen <ric...@ralemen.org> wrote:
It is criminal neglect that those governments opposing the listing of chrysotile place profit motives over the health of their citizens.
Sent from my iPhone
Dr. Richard A. Lemen
Assistant Surgeon General,
USPHS (ret)
> <BANI Public Statement MAY 10 2019.pdf>
--
Gopal Krishna
....years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth. I said then, and I say now, that while there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free.
-------Eugene Debs, five times Presidential candidate of USA & author of Walls and Bars
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages