Make India Asbestos Free

Make India Asbestos Free
For Asbestos Free India

Journal of Ban Asbestos Network of India (BANI). Asbestos Free India campaign of BANI is inspired by trade union movement and right to health campaign. BANI has been working since 2000. It works with peoples movements, doctors, researchers and activists besides trade unions, human rights, environmental, consumer and public health groups. BANI demands criminal liability for companies and medico-legal remedy for victims.

Thursday, May 16, 2013

India reverses stand on asbestos at Rotterdam Convention meet: Down To Earth

India reverses stand on asbestos at Rotterdam Convention meet

Opposes its inclusion in prior informed consent list; campaigners accuse industry lobby of influencing government

In a retrograde move, India opposed the listing of chrysotile asbestos under Annex III of the Rotterdam Convention at the sixth meeting of Conference of Parties (COP6) on May 8 in Geneva. Substances listed under Annex III of the Convention—a global treaty to promote shared responsibilities in relation to import of hazardous chemicals—require exporting countries to advise importing countries about the toxicity of the substances so that importers can give their prior informed consent (PIC) for trade. The Convention does not ban or limit trade in such hazardous substances.

Civil society members campaigning for a global ban on asbestos expressed shock at India retracting from its earlier decision, and allege that the Indian delegation was influenced by the industry lobby to take such a stand. 

Chrysotile asbestos, the most common form of asbestos used in India, is a fibrous substance, often mixed with cement to create a fire-retardant mixture which is applied to corrugated steel sheets and pipes. Called “the poor man’s material”, it is often used in roofing structures by the poor in India because of its high insulation and low-cost.

The Chemical Review Committee, a subsidiary body of the Convention, had recommended listing of white asbestos under Annex III as the World Health Organisation (WHO) had found that asbestos was harmful to human health and environment. It is a carcinogen.

The Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade is aimed at helping developing countries in managing potentially hazardous chemicals imported by them.

Going back on its word
During the fifth Conference of Parties (COP5) in June 2011, the Indian delegation had agreed to the listing of chrysotile asbestos in the PIC list, and received a standing ovation at the plenary. Despite India’s support, COP5 had not been able to reach a consensus on the listing of chrysotile asbestos in the PIC list. The reason given was confusion over the meaning of 'listing' as opposed to 'banning'. With no consensus, the PIC listing was postponed to COP6.

At the ongoing COP6 in Geneva, the Indian delegation did not support the listing, citing reasons such as the utility of the substance, the finding of “no hazard” in domestic studies and the increased trade costs of the PIC Procedure. The Russian federation suggested removing the issue from further consideration by the COP as there had been no consensus earlier. The COP forwarded the issue to the Contact Group on Listing of Chemicals. However, the agenda item was closed today, with chrysotile asbestos still not included in PIC.
M Subba Rao, director of MoEF, did not comment on the matter and said RN Jindal, assistant director, MoEF, who is also a part of the Indian delegation in Geneva, should be contacted.

Lobbies at work
It is believed that India had changed its stand based on a study conducted by the National Institute of Occupational Health (NIOH) and the Department of Chemicals and Petrochemicals (DCPC) on effects of use of chrysotile asbestos on health and the environment. The study was done twice, in 2008 and in 2011, for big and small industries separately. The report released in May 2012 says the fibre concentration in predominant samples was found to be within permissible exposure levels.

The asbestos-cement industry is the largest user of chrysotile fibres, accounting for about 85 per cent of all use. The entire requirement of chrysotile asbestos is met through imports. The domestic industry in India is worth over USD 1 billion, and provides employment to a few thousand people.

“It is shocking that the ministry is quoting a discredited study by NIOH for not listing Chrysotile in PIC. Through RTI queries it had been exposed that the NIOH study was funded by major asbestos industries. The industry lobby bought the Indian delegates during COP6. We are thinking of moving court,” said Gopal Krishna of non-profit ToxicsWatch Alliance.

C Jayakumar, director of Thanal Conservation Action and Information Network, who attended the COP6 meet and is back in India, said that Indian delegates seemed clueless about what was going on at the meet. “My colleagues are still there attending the meetings and they informed me that India quoted a discredited study to oppose the listing of chrysotile asbestos,” he said, adding that the industry seems to have strong influence on the delegation.

Global push for a ban
WHO cites 107,000 occupational deaths yearly from exposure to asbestos. Chrysotile asbestos, in particular, is a toxic carcinogen. WHO, the International Labour Organization and the World Bank have all called for an end to the use of this substance. Over the past century, chrysotile asbestos represented 95 per cent of all asbestos sold, with all other forms of asbestos representing five per cent of asbestos sold. Today, it is the only form of asbestos in use.

The Union for the International Control of Cancer (2012), comprising more than 700 member organisations in 155 countries, the World Federation of Public Health Associations (2005), the International Commission on Occupational Health (2000), the International Social Security Association (2004), the Collegium Ramazzini (1999, 20105) and the International Trade Union Confederation (2004) – representing 175 million workers in 151 countries – have all called for a global ban on the use of all forms of asbestos, particularly chrysotile asbestos.

India earlier had not supported the inclusion of paraquat dichloride, a highly toxic substance used as a herbicide in diluted form, under Annex III of the Rotterdam Convention, similarly stating there was no scientific basis for the stated threshold limit in the proposal.

Soma Basu
Down To Earth

Comments

The asbestos lobby is transparently behind the about turn in India's stand. With elections around the corner, is it any wonder? Vistasp Mehta

Glare on asbestos risk U-turn: The Telegraph

Glare on asbestos risk U-turn

New Delhi, May 15: India’s environment ministry has ignored domestic laws and reneged on its own pledge by telling a global convention there is not enough evidence to show that asbestos is hazardous to health, a non-government group said today.
The group, called Toxics Watch Alliance, has complained to the Centre that the ministry delegation’s position at the UN’s Rotterdam Convention in Geneva earlier this month was contrary to Indian laws and the ministry’s own earlier decision.
Toxics Watch Alliance said the ministry delegation had told the convention that studies by Ahmedabad’s National Institute of Occupational Health (NIOH) had shown no hazards from white chrysotile asbestos, widely used in the construction industry to make asbestos-cement material.
The convention was debating the need to include chrysotile asbestos into a special list of hazardous substances that would make it obligatory for exporting countries to alert importing countries about shipments.
In a letter to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Toxics Watch Alliance has said it appears (asbestos) industry representatives have “overwhelmed government representatives who were made to take a position against human health and the environment”.
The group has cited several domestic laws that classify asbestos as a hazardous substance. The ministry’s own vision statement says: “Alternatives to asbestos may be used to the extent possible and use of asbestos may be phased out.”
Toxics Watch Alliance also cited a concept paper by the Union labour ministry circulated at an India-European Union conference on occupational health that said the Indian government was “considering a ban on the use of chrysotile asbestos in India to protect the workers and general population against primary and secondary exposure to chrysotile form of asbestos”.
It said the ministry stand this year was a “volte-face” over its support for the listing of asbestos as a hazardous substance indicated by the environment ministry’s own delegation at the previous Rotterdam Convention meeting in 2011.
“In 2011, India received a standing ovation for its support, we are saddened by what happened this year,” said Gopal Krishna, a representative of Toxics Watch Alliance in New Delhi.
The Union environment secretary and the head of the environment ministry delegation to the convention this year were not available for comment. Another member of the delegation declined to provide any response.
Toxics Watch Alliance has said documents it obtained through the Right to Information Act have shown that the chrysotile asbestos industry had provided Rs 16 lakh to the NIOH study that cost about Rs 60 lakh.
The non-government group said the documents also reveal that a review committee of the NIOH study had said that the report of the findings would be “finalised after due discussions with the asbestos industry”.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer had said in 2009 that “there is sufficient evidence in humans for the carcinogenicity of all forms of asbestos”.

In Geneva, India U-turn on chrysotile asbestos:The Asian Age

In Geneva, India U-turn on chrysotile asbestos

In a dramatic turnaround, India has altered its earlier position and opposed listing of chrysotile asbestos as a hazardous substance at the sixth meeting of the Conference of Parties (COP-6) in Geneva.

Substances listed under annex 111 of the Rotterdam Convention of COP-6 demand that exporting countries must give details about the toxicity of the substances to importing nations in order that the latter can give their prior informed consent (PIC) in matters of trade.

In COP-6, India has, under obvious pressure from the asbestos lobby, taken a viewpoint that since chrysotile asbestos possesses utility, it cannot be brought under the ambit of the PIC.

But in 2011, during COP 5, India received a standing ovation when leader of the delegation Meera Mahrishi, additional secretary in the environment ministry, had declared at the plenary that chrysotile asbestos must be so listed.

The turnaround is all the more strange because the ministry’s own website has placed it under the list of hazardous substances.

The present delegation, led by Ajay Tyagi, joint secretary in the environment ministry, was not willing to go public on India’s changed stance but a senior bureaucrat cited a study conducted by the National Institute of Occupational Health (NIOH) and the department of chemicals and petrochemicals (DCPC) on the effects of the use of chrysotile asbestos on both workers health and environment.

The report stated that it was not hazardous and that it was within permissible exposure levels.
Panning the NIOH and DCPC study, Gopal Krishna, heading Toxics Watch Alliance, said, “We have done a series of RTIs to show that the asbestos industry was the major funder for the NIOH study. We also question why the Indian delegation to Geneva had included two representatives from the asbestos industry.
We are planning to move court over this issue.”

Activists have been demanding that chrysotile asbestos be listed as a hazardous substance. A similar recommendation has been made by the United Nations’ Chemical Review Committee which comprises a group of 31 leading scientists from across the globe.

India’s asbestos cement industry is a large consumer of chrysotile fibres and uses 85 per cent of its imports.

Blog Archive