Chronological Record of the Contributions of National Delegations and Others
Russian Federation: Whilst appreciating the consensus process, the position held by the Russian Federation remains as detailed in the letter submitted to Jim Willis, the Executive Secretary of the Rotterdam Convention Secretariat.2 Chrysotile has not been established as a carcinogen. According to the 1998 IPCS/WHO book on Chrysotile: “Information on the carcinogenic risk of chrysotile to the human population is lacking; data on threshold exposures is lacking.” ILO Convention 162 supports the position that chrysotile can be used under controlled conditions in a manner which is risk-free. American, Finnish and Russian group of scientists support this position. The ILO and WHO should be asked for further data.
In the 5th Session of the ICRC neither the WHO or IPCS provided additional information on the carcinogenic risk of chrysotile to humans. “There is not an adequate basis for inclusion of chrysotile on the PIC list.”
Russian scientists have been working on this issue for more than 10 years and have accumulated a lot of information on chrysotile and are willing to share this information.
Ukraine: Chrysotile should not be included as there is no scientific basis to do so. “I like other participants received a copy of the asbestos issue of the International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health in which Richard Lemen stated that “there is not an adequate basis for banning asbestos.” Chrysotile should not be included.
Ukraine favors putting aside this decision until there is adequate scientific data. It “could create great harm for human health if we reduce the use of chrysotile on the basis of inadequate threats. Ukraine cannot join in the proposal.”
Kazakhstan: We believes it is necessary to delay consideration of the inclusion of chrysotile. There is no basis for including chrysotile in Annex 3; “we fully support the Russian position. There is no reason to include chrysotile.”
Kyrgyzstan: We support the Russian position. It is “possible to make the use of chrysotile risk-free.”
Chile: Rodrigo Espinosa said Chile supports the inclusion of chrysotile in the PIC list; Espinosa objected to comments made about the Chilean process for banning asbestos which appeared in a letter from the Russian Federation.3 The ICRC analysed the Chilean notification of its national asbestos prohibitions and verified the process. Having received ICRC validation, it is unacceptable for the Russians to object to Chile's notification process. The information in the Russian letter is inconsistent.
Canada: Barry Stemshorn said that Canada supports the principle of the Rotterdam Convention but also supports the controlled use of chrysotile at home (stress on the word home) and abroad. “Canada has concerns that prevent it from supporting inclusion at this time.” This was a very short statement.
European Commission (EC): Klaus Berend said:
“The EC and its 25 member states strongly support the inclusion of chrysotile in the interim PIC procedure. Until now, the Convention procedures have worked well and some 12 chemicals have been added to the list. The case of chrysotile should be no different. All the criteria for inclusion have been met and all the procedures followed. We regret that there seems to be several delegations who are missing the point. We are not here to discuss the substance. All the criteria for inclusion of chrysotile have been met and the ICRC unanimously recommended to INC2 the inclusion of chrysotile.”
The objections being voiced seem to be based on a serious misunderstanding of the Convention:
1. the inclusion of a chemical in the interim PIC procedure does not constitute a ban. The Rotterdam Convention is for information exchange so parties can decide for themselves whether to use designated chemicals;
2. some delegations are also arguing that the Convention is deficient. The European Commission finds it difficult to see what fundamental difference there is between the controlled use policy advocated by some delegations and the Convention's concept of “severe restriction.”
The Convention aims to establish international means to minimize risk; such decisions on whether to use designated chemicals can only be made by the nations themselves but to do so they need adequate information. In the case of chrysotile, some nations may decide to ban it, others may consider that the controlled use of chrysotile is possible.
“The decision to include chrysotile should not be delayed; this creates a bad precedent which could harm the Convention in the future. There is no place in the Convention process for comparative risk assessment; each party has to make its own decisions.”
If the inclusion of chrysotile is rejected, the future inclusion of additional hazardous materials could become impossible.
The Russian delegation maintains that the EU ban on chrysotile was motivated by the commercial interests of the producers of chrysotile alternatives. “This allegation is absolutely baseless. The ICRC verified our motivation as did the World Trade Organization. Producers of asbestos substitutes are located inside the EU and outside. The EU supports inclusion.”
Appealing to delegates' sense of responsibility, Berend urged delegations opposing inclusion to reconsider; depriving counties of the information needed to make informed decisions is irresponsible. While the procedures of the Rotterdam Convention have worked well “until now,” the rejection of chrysotile sets a “bad precedent for the future.”
Egypt: Work by 25 experts including representatives from the Russian Federation, Ukraine and elsewhere were part of the process of validation of the asbestos bans passed by the European Commission and Chile. This Committee was representative and had the option to recommend or reject the inclusion of chrysotile. Following their decision to recommend inclusion, under Article 7, products passed by this process must be added to the PIC list. Egypt is in favor of including chrysotile and agrees with the European Commission. The provision of accurate information on the use of this substance is important.
Indonesia: “Inclusion of chrysotile will create a more complex national situation. I would have difficulty to support inclusion.”
Zimbabwe: The delegation gives full support to the Russian Federation, Canada and others rejecting the inclusion of chrysotile. “It should not be listed.” “Further reflection” is needed.
Norway: Norway supports the inclusion of chrysotile. The ICRC received adequate notification on chrysotile which fulfilled all the requirements specified in the Convention. If chrysotile is not added, this will be difficult to explain to the public. The inclusion of chrysotile on the PIC list does not constitute a ban. The role of the Rotterdam Convention could become limited as exporting countries will block inclusion of materials which have economic implications. “This is an unfortunate precedent.”
Colombia: We reiterate our position; Colombia does not agree with the inclusion of chrysotile due to “lack of evidence of the real risks to human health.”
Mexico: We support the non-inclusion of chrysotile because of many scientific aspects and because for Mexico it would be difficult to support such a decision.
Iran: We acknowledge concerns about the use of chrysotile, so we have regulations to control the use of chrysotile. Before confirming the existence of safer alternatives, more time is needed.
New Zealand: New Zealand is concerned about exposure to asbestos and thinks national control of its use is important. We use occupational safety and health regulations to achieve this. It is important to flag the risks at multilateral levels as this will support national action. Chrysotile should be included on the PIC list as such multilateral action would support national decisions to restrict its use.
Ghana: We are not in a position to add chrysotile. Rejecting the ICRC recommendation to include chrysotile is a good precedent as it shows we do not automatically rubber-stamp ICRC opinions.
India: We have studied this issue during the past twelve months with an “open mind” said Ramesh Inder Singh. “We are not convinced that the opinion of putting chrysotile on the PIC list is correct.” “More time (is needed) to dwell on this issue.” We support the statement by the Canadian delegation and endorse the view that “this house is not a rubber stamp of the ICRC.” We oppose inclusion.
Tanzania: We support inclusion. Such a decision would strengthen management of this chemical at national and international levels.
China: Having studied the ICRC report, we believe, based on current evidence, that the inclusion of chrysotile to the PIC list is premature. More evidence is needed on the risks of asbestos alternatives. We support Russia and Canada's opinions that chrysotile should not be included.
Argentina: In favor of the inclusion of chrysotile.
Gambia: We were a member of the ICRC and advocate the inclusion of chrysotile. Only through the PIC listing can we access the information needed to protect ourselves
Jamaica: During this discussion, a general consensus has emerged that chrysotile needs to be managed. I believe that the recommendation to list chrysotile needs to be taken seriously. We need to recognize that countries have a right to continue or discontinue their use of chrysotile. In my country, as in many others, it takes a long time to get regulations on health and safety passed; implementation also takes a long time. The notification process specified under the Rotterdam Convention is important. “Jamaica strongly supports the inclusion of chrysotile.”
Congo: We support the inclusion of chrysotile as we “have no physical means to control” harmful exposures to asbestos.
Guinea: In Guinea there are strict regulations on the use of all forms of asbestos; industry can still use it but it is controlled. Guinea “favors putting chrysotile on the PIC list because of reasons of health, environment and prevention.”
WWF: Clifton Curtis said that the Chairwoman's summation of the task at hand was an appropriate reminder that this is a procedural and not a substantive decision. It is very clear under Article 5, sub-paragraphs 5 & 6, that chrysotile should be included on Annex 3 as it unequivocally meets the Conventions' requirements. The inclusion is an “early warning system to alert governments of issues of concern.” A decision today, not to list chrysotile, is “a bad omen” and indicates that the Convention's requirements do not need to be taken seriously.”
WHO: The IPCS 1998 document on chrysotile [Environmental Health Criteria 202: Chrysotile Asbestos] concluded that:
“Exposure to chrysotile asbestos poses increased risks for asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma in a dose-dependent manner. No threshold has been identified for carcinogenic risks.
Where safer substitute materials for chrysotile are available, they should be considered for use.”
Research by the WHO, in conjunction with the IARC, is under way on the hazards of asbestos substitutes; publication in 2005 is anticipated.
International Ban Asbestos Secretariat: Laurie Kazan-Allen pointed out that the statement made referring to the opinion of Dr. Richard Lemen by the Ukraine delegate was a total misrepresentation; Dr. Lemen believes that exposure to chrysotile is hazardous.4
Kazan-Allen referred to the existence of thousands of global asbestos victims and criticized the proposal to omit from the official record the positions taken by individual delegations:
“It is not accurate to say simply that consensus has not been achieved in the official report of this meeting. Thousands of asbestos victims in countries such as Canada and India have a right to know what has been done here today by delegates representing their countries.”
September 19, 2004
_______
1 This record is based on contemporaneous notes taken during the debate rather than an exact transcription of the English translation.
2 A copy of this letter has been obtained.
3 A copy of the Chilean objection to the Russian letter was obtained.
4 In a paper entitled: Chrysotile Asbestos as a Cause of Mesothelioma: Application of the Hill Causation Model which was published in volume 10, number 2 of the International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health in April/June 2004, Dr. Lemen wrote: “chrysotile per se can induce mesothelioma even when tremolite or other amphiboles are not detected… (there is) no doubt that the scientific evidence supports the carcinogenicity of chrysotile alone in the induction of mesothelioma.. no safe dose has been identified below which a risk of developing mesothelioma no longer exists.”
