Fwd: Rotterdam Convention update !
yuyun ismawati
From: Laurie Kazan-Allen <l...@btinternet.com>
Date: Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 11:10 PM
Subject: Rotterdam Convention!
To: ">" <@smtp822.mail.ird.yahoo.com>
Dear All-
I am minute by minute monitoring the news being sent out by our colleagues in Geneva who are witnessing one of the most incredible displays of bald-faced political power plays imaginable.
A short while ago, a colleague sent this transcript through detailing the position taken by Canada as its delegate explained this afternoon:
Canada - "Canada was present
during contact group discussions and was at these that Canada made its position
known, its opposition to the listing. Asserts its right to take the position and
to express it at the time it prefers and thinks best. Indeed we did so a full
2.5 days before the completion of the conference. Indeed here may be other
countries opposed who have not expressed it. That is their right. Let it be
clear. For over 30 years the government of Canada has actively promoted the safe
and controlled use of chrysotile both domestically and internationally. We would
ask the delegations to respect the option Canada has taken. And consider
that perhaps we should look at the future and an alternate voluntary position
when COPs are not in the position to agree on listing a particular chemical.
Please keep in mind madam chair and fellow delegations the pessimism that has
been expressed about the working of the convention is overly pessimistic….. It
is premature to throw the baby out with the bath water and conclude that the
convention is not functioning as intended.
Africa asks again for Canada’s
reasons for opposing listing.
Canada’s response: “For last 30
years Government of Canada has actively promoted safe and controlled use of
chrysotile both domestically and internationally.” Chair – “I take that as
Canada’s reason”.
Minutes later, the group of Africa nations issued a denunciation of Canada's behavior.
Africa Group Statement on candidate chemicals
The Africa Group wishes to thank the Co-Chairs of the Candidate chemicals contact group for their skillful leadership and their efforts to resolve the issue of listing of Chrysotile asbestos in Annex III. We also thank India for their spirit of compromise and for their efforts to provide additional information to the countries who were still unable to agree to the listing of Chrysotile asbestos in an effort to move forward. The Africa Group also thanks Switzerland for their compromise text in efforts to ensure that consensus is reached. The Africa Group believes that this text accommodated the concerns of the apposing countries while achieving the objectives of the convention which are to protect the vulnerable populations. We also thank the EU for their document, but note that the African regions is not supportive of parallel voluntary mechanisms as these may render the Convention ineffective, and hamper our efforts to move towards listing.
Recalling what transpired at the contract on candidate chemicals, the Africa group must register its extreme disappointment in the manner in which Canada has acted with respect to the listing of this chemical. Their eleventh hour revelation that they were not able to concede to the listing of Chrysotile Asbestos in Annex III took the contact group meeting by surprise. Only after there appeared to be significant movement of the other opposing countries to consider the Swiss proposal, did they express themselves on the matter. The actions of Canada have in the view of the Africa Group set back the progress made by the contact group, as they did not make themselves available to have further discussion in the smaller group, and did not express to the group a willingness to debate the issue of the listing. The other countries opposed to the listing which joined the smaller discussion group, identified the issues which caused them difficulties in agreeing to the listing and the contact group were able to consider these concerns and propose options to address them through the Switzerland compromise decision. Canada by their actions have not allowed the group to understand the issues which do not allow them to reach consensus on the listing decision. The Africa Group hereby calls on Canada to put forward to the Conference the reasons for their opposition to the listing, that the parities can assist them in an attempt to negotiate and find solutions which allow COP 5 to be able to list and meet the objectives of the Convention.
It is at significant cost both in terms of resources and physical costs that the Africa Region sends representatives to these meeting, the African Region is encouraged by the listing of the other candidate chemicals but would be extremely disappointed if opposing countries cannot find it in themselves to negotiate to a successful outcome which is a listing of all four candidate chemicals.
Thank you Madam President.
Then the ROCA made the following intervention
We want to echo the statement of the African group and other previous speakers, and also thank India for the change of their position, which is very encouraging, and we want to thank all other countries that were willing to discuss the listing. But we want to express our disappointment about the late announcement of Canada and that they would not support the listing, for reasons that have nothing to do with the convention. We want to point out that when a country acknowledges a chemical meets the scientific criteria and still opposes its listing, then it undermines the integrity of the convention. We strongly oppose the position of those countries, which refer to the lack of scientific data as the reason to oppose listing of asbestos. Many countries and well known international organizations do have enough of comprehensive information and scientifically proved data on asbestos health effects. If countries do not have national data confirming this it does not give them the right to undermine the CRC recommendations and data provided by other countries and organizations. We urge all Parties to come to a consensus decisions. Don´t let economical and political reasons undermine the scientific basis of the convention.
Now news has been sent from Tony Fletcher, a UK epidemiologist who is in Canada for a scientific meeting. He wrote: "angered by Canada's actions this week, and as we are in Montreal at major epidemiology conference, we drew up a resolution which was endorsed more or less unanimously."
RESOLUTION
This morning, a large gathering of epidemiologists added their voice to the outrage against Canada's obstruction of the listing of Asbestos under the Rotterdam convention. Colin Soskolne President of the Canadian Society for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, made the following statement which was overwhelmingly endorsed by a show of hands in the plenary session this morning, with no votes against among the over 1000 scientists present:
"Yesterday, at the Geneva Conference of the Parties reviewing the United Nations Rotterdam Convention on the global movement of hazardous substances, Canadian Government representatives opposed the listing of chrysotile asbestos as a hazardous substance. The principle obligation under the Convention is to force exporting countries to warn recipient countries of any health hazards associated with substances listed under the Convention. Those countries could also then refuse asbestos imports if they didn’t think that they could handle the product safely. The Convention requires consensus and, yesterday, Canada was the sole country, with countries including Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, India and Vietnam who had previously blocked the listing of chrysotile asbestos, changing their previous position to now support the listing of chrysotile asbestos under the Convention. As of yesterday, Canada is now alone in the world in having blocked the inclusion of this substance … for at least the next three years.
It is a tragic irony that one of the largest global conferences of epidemiologists - researchers studying the causes and prevention of disease - is taking place this very same week in Montreal, Canada. The meeting, organized by the leading professional associations in Canada and the United States, including the American College of Epidemiology, the Canadian Society for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, the Society for Epidemiologic Research, and the Epidemiology section of the American Public Health Association, has attracted some 1,535 delegates.
Asbestos is a recognized cause of asbestosis, lung cancer, and of mesothelioma in particular. Highlighting these hazards and avoiding exposure is essential to end this cancer epidemic, which is why all other parties to the Convention have endorsed the inclusion of asbestos on the Rotterdam Convention list of hazardous substances.
We can register our extreme disapproval of the Government of Canada's position in blocking the listing of chrysotile under the convention that simply requires the "prior informed consent" of importing countries. The listing has no bearing whatsoever on limiting trade.
To gain a sense of support from delegates in this room, please raise your hands if either you support this position, condemning the Canadian government for not joining in support of the inclusion of chrysotile asbestos on the Rotterdam Convention list of hazardous substances, or you abstain from offering their support at this time or are in support of Canada's position."
On shows of hands for each of these three options, 3 abstained from wanting to make a public declaration, zero voting in support of Canada's position, the remaining 1000 plus participants voted to support the above statement.
Laurie