Posted on May 30, 2015

Guest blog by Marc Hindry

14 May 2015. Rotterdam Convention 2015 :   chrysotile asbestos will not be included in the list of dangerous products

A Pyrrhic victory for the Russian asbestos industry

The theme chosen for the Convention was promising «From Science to Action. For a better Future». Let us use scientific knowledge to protect populations from toxic product hazards.

The World Health Organisation (WHO) recalled that all forms of asbestos are carcinogenic and there is no safe threshold.

The International Labour Organisation (OIT) recalled that, contrary to a frequent lie by the asbestos industry, the OIT Convention 162 on asbestos (1986) does NOT recommend controlled use of asbestos, quite the contrary the ILO position is to eliminate asbestos.

Nevertheless, during the soft, polite discussions of the Conference of Parties (CoP), 7 countries raised objections to the inclusion of chrysotile asbestos: Russia, Kazakhstan, India, Kyrghyzstan, Pakistan, Cuba and Zimbabwe.

The announced sabotage did occur. During the final plenary session only 4 countries underlined their opposition:

Russia, Kazakhstan et Kyrghyzstan (in Russian), and Zimbabwe (in English)

The delegates of these countries probably felt awkward during Wednesday’s 13th May, the presentation of ROCA (Rotterdam Convention Alliance, to which ANDEVA is taking part) by Alexandra Caterbrow, Sanjiv Pandita and Yeyong Choi, followed by the testimony of an asbestos victim from India, Sharad Vittnal Sawant , who worked for 40 years in a Hindustan Ferodo, using chrysotile asbestos. Shortbreathed, speaking with difficulties he delivered a simple and moving message:

«I suffer from asbestosis, so does my wife. More than 400 of my colleagues have received a diagnosis of asbestos disease. I have come to ask you to include chrysotile asbestos on the PIC list of the Rotterdam Convention.»

The motives of each of the handful of sabotaging countries (Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrghyzstan and Zimbabwe) are crystal clear and have nothing to do with the purpose and rules of the Rotterdam Convention.

Russia is the biggest global asbestos producer (1 million tonnes per year); of course the Russian government does not ignore the fact that asbestos is highly dangerous, but since there is no awareness of that danger within the Russian population, no register of cancers, and nobody to address those health problems in Russia, it chooses to protect the interest of two mining companies Uralasbest and Orenbourg Minerals. Those companies evaluate that the inclusion of chrysotile asbest on the list of hazardous substances would have a disastrous effect on their trade. Kazakstan is one of the four asbestos producers and the third asbestos exporter. Kyrghyzstan aligns with Russia.

Zimbabwe has been in the past a big producer of asbestos, like South Africa. The asbestos mines are all closed in South Africa, because the country has banned asbestos. The mines are also closed down in Zimbabwe, but because of chaos and corruption. Dubious businessmen have convinced the government to oppose the listing of chrysotile, in case they would reopen the mines.

Canada remained silent … This is quite remarkable when you remember that the government opposed listing of chrysotile four times (in 2004, 2006, 2088, 2011) before the abstention in 2013 and this year. What happened in 2012? The answer is simple : the last Canadian asbestos mine was closed down in 2012.

United states, not a member of the Convention but present as observer, supported the inclusion of chrysotile.

Ukraine broke away this year from Russia and did not oppose the listing of chrysotile.

Except Zimbabwe the African states unanimously supported the inclusion of chrysotile asbestos. Benin, Liberia, Nigeria, Niger, Congo, democratic republic of Congo, Cameroon, Kenya, equatorial Guinea all underlined their support to the inclusion of chrysotile. Several of these countries insisted on their need of information on the toxic products.

The asbestos trade in Latin America is slowly but surely declining towards its end.

Neither the big and only producer is Brazil, which extracts 300 000 tonnes from the Cana Brava mine, exploited by Eternit Brasil of which half is exported nor the two other main consumers in this region, Colombia and Mexico opposed. Argentina and Uruguay, which have banned asbestos, supported the inclusion.

New Zealand backed the inclusion and Australia and the European Communauty made strong statements.

Jointly with chrysotile asbestos, four highly toxic pesticides were proposed for inclusion on the PIC list : Fenthion, Paraquat, Methamidophos and Trichlorfon.

For each of them the delegate of the Russian FEderation declared in essence that :

«Russia does not use, does not produce and does not import this product

[therefore] we support its inclusion».

Nevertheless each product had a defenser and only Methamidophos will be listed. For example India opposed to the inclusion of Paraquat and Trichlorfon, Soudan to the inclusion of Fenthion. Mexico initially opposed the inclusion of Methamidophos, but then withdrew its objections.

CONCLUSION

The failure of the Rotterdam Convention, in spite of the commendable effort from the overwhelming majority of technicians and delegates, is plainly obvious.

The conclusion is clear.

An overwhelming majority of countries wanted both paraquat and chrysotile asbestos to be listed in Annex III of the Rotterdam Convention. However, a small number of countries have denied these countries of the right to participate to the prior informed consent procedure (PIC). Due to this failure, these countries must redouble efforts to pass national bans on both substances. The countries blocking these listings may think that they preserved their export business but they have actually motivated other countries towards national ban decisions.

The inscrupulous industry has won a Pyrrhic victory and is, in fact, only accelarating the decline of this deadly trade.