COP-12 of Rotterdam Convention keeps inclusion of chrysotile asbestos in Annex III pending

Dinesh Runiwal who is a scientist in the Hazardous Substances Management Division in Union Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) is now a member of the UN's Chemical Review Committee (CRC) of the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade  until April 30, 2028. This was communicated at the UN's Twelfth meeting of Conference of the Parties (COP) to the Rotterdam Convention in Geneva during 28 April–9 May 2025. He has replaced Amit Vashishtha, a scientist with the Hazardous Substances Management Division of MoEF&CC. 

 

Notably, Runiwal is the Member Secretary of the 14 member-Expert Appraisal Committee (Industry-1 Sector) under Environment Impact Assessment Division under the provisions of EIA Notification, 2006. This Committee undertakes appraisal of Asbestos Milling and Asbestos Products. There appears to be a conflict-of-interest in his dual role. In his latter role he is part the Expert Appraisal Committee which grants environmental clearance to plants of Asbestos Milling and Asbestos Products. In his former role he is part of the UN's Chemical Review Committee (CRC) which has recommended inclusion of chrysotile asbestos in Annex III of the Rotterdam Convention which includes pesticides and industrial chemicals that have been banned or severely restricted for health or environmental reasons by two or more Parties and which the Conference of the Parties has decided to subject to the PIC procedure.  Will it possible for Runiwal to do justice to both the roles? 

This is not the first instance of conflict-of-interest. Jagat Prakash Nadda, the union minister for Chemicals, which promotes trade in chemicals including asbestos is also the union minister for health which regulates chemicals including health impact of all kinds of asbestos. 

 

As a consequence, it seems National Institute of Occupational Health, Ahmedabad is not able to comply with one of the six directions of the Supreme Court in its judgement dated January 27, 1995.  The six directions are as under:

All the industries are directed (1) To maintain and keep maintaining the health record of every worker up to a minimum period of 40 years from the beginning of the employment or 15 years after retirement or cessation of the employment whichever is later; (2) The Membrane Filter test, to detect asbestos fibre should be adopted by all the factories or establishments at par with the Metalliferrous Mines Regulations, 1961; and Vienna Convention and Rules issued thereunder; (3) All the factories whether covered by the Employees State Insurance Act or Workmen’s Compensation Act or otherwise are directed to compulsorily insure health coverage to every worker; (4) The Union and the State Governments are directed to review the standards of permissible exposure limit value of fibre/cc in tune with the international standards reducing the permissible content as prayed in the writ petition referred to at the beginning. The review shall be continued after every 10 years and also as an when the I.L.O. gives directions in this behalf consistent with its recommendations or any Conventions; (5) The Union and all the State Governments are directed to consider inclusion of such of those small scale factory or factories or industries to protect health hazards of the worker engaged in the manufacture of asbestos or its ancillary produce; (6) The appropriate Inspector of Factories in particular of the State of Gujarat, is directed to send all the workers, examined by the concerned ESI hospital, for re-examination by the National Institute of Occupational Health to detect whether all or any of them are suffering from asbestosis. In case of the positive finding that all or any of them are suffering from the occupational health hazards, each such worker shall be entitled to compensation in a sum of rupees one lakh payable by the concerned factory or industry or establishment within a period of three months from the date of certification by the National Institute of Occupational Health."   

Recalling the significance of the judgement, Dr. Barry Castleman,the author of Asbestos: Medical and Legal Aspects said: "It is a tribute to public interest lawyer Rani Advani of the Consumer Education and Research Centre that the Indian Supreme Court issued such a thorough decision in 1995.  It is so disappointing that, 30 years later, India is the world's leading asbestos-using country and the judgment of the Court is disregarded by the Union government.  Many people are needlessly condemned to die for the rest of this century as buildings containing asbestos continue to be constructed.  This is a tragedy and a monstrous failure of the Indian political class."

He added: "A vicious combination of corruption (e.g., elected representatives holding financial interests in asbestos companies), bribery, and Russian trade barriers have enabled the continued global consumption of asbestos to remain at over one million tons a year.  This is down from almost 5 million t/y in the late 1970s and 2 million t/y in 1995.  The vast majority of this remaining market is in Asia."

But unmindful of the judicial decisions, the issue of chrysotile asbestos has eluded consensus for including it in the Annex III because it was recommended by the CRC for inclusion in February 2005 although COP has agreed that it meets all criteria for listing but has not yet reached consensus to include it  in Annex III. COP 3 (October 2006), COP 4 (October 2008), COP 5 (June 2011), COP 6 (May 2013), COP 7 (May 2015), COP 8 (May 2017), COP 9 (May 2019), COP 10 (June 2022) and COP 11 (May 2023) considered it for inclusion in Annex III but the Conference of the Parties (COP) has not yet been able to reach consensus.

The COP, at its 3rd meeting in 2006, adopted a decision on chrysotile asbestos, which, encouraged Parties to make use of all available information to make informed decisions regarding its import and management, and to inform other Parties of those decisions, using the information exchange provisions laid down in Article 14 of the Rotterdam Convention. COP3 also decided that the agenda for its next ordinary meeting shall include further consideration of a draft decision to amend Annex III to the Rotterdam Convention to include chrysotile asbestos. COP4 adopted a decision on chrysotile asbestos deciding that the agenda for its next ordinary meeting shall include further consideration of a draft decision to amend Annex III to the Rotterdam Convention to include chrysotile asbestos. COP5 was also not able to reach consensus and agreed to annex a draft decision to its report, which is set out in annex IV to the COP 5 report (document UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.5/26). COP6, COP7, COP8, COP9, COP 10, and COP 11 decided to defer further consideration of the chemical to their corresponding subsequent meeting. The Secretariat of Rotterdam Convention publishes the information received from the Parties on chrysotile asbestos in the Appendix VI, Information exchange on chemicals recommended by the Chemical Review Committee for listing in Annex III but for which the Conference of the Parties is yet to take a final decision.

In the  MoEF&CC, Runiwal has been assigned the Chemical Safety and Overall coordination on the theme: Chemicals.
-The Manufacture Storage and Import of Hazardous Chemicals Rules, 1989
-The Chemical Accident (Emergency Planning" Preparedness and Response) Rules; 1996
-Regulation of Polychlorinated Biphenyls Order, 2016
-GEF-UNIDO Project on PCBs
-GEF-UNIDO Project on DDT Draft notification on Classification, Packing and Labelling of Chemical Rules, 2011
-Regulation of Lead contents in Household and Decorative Paints Rules, 2016
-Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants
-Minamata Convention on Mercury
-Strategic approach to international chemicals management (SAICM)
-GIS based Emergency Planning and Response System.
-Rotterdam Convention of Prior informed consent procedure for certain hazardous chemicals and Pesticides in international trade
-Construction and Demolition Waste Management Rules, 2016.

Notably, the list of hazardous chemicals under Part II of the Schedule I under The Manufacture Storage and Import of Hazardous Chemicals Rules, 1989 has 434 chemicals including asbestos. But since February 2005, government of India has been contending at the meetings of Rotterdam Convention that chrysotile asbestos is not a hazardous chemical and resisting its inclusion in the Annexure III includes pesticides and industrial chemicals that have been banned or severely restricted for health or environmental reasons by two or more Parties and which the Conference of the Parties has decided to subject to the PIC procedure! There are a total of 52 chemicals listed in Annex III, 35 pesticides (including 3 Severely Hazardous Pesticide Formulations (SHPF)), 16 industrial chemicals, and 1 chemical in both the pesticide and the industrial chemical categories.