Update from the Rotterdam Convention [COP9]

The Rotterdam Convention (RC), which was adopted in September 1998 and entered into force on 24 February 2004, creates legally-binding obligations for the implementation of the Prior Informed Consent (PIC) procedure.

The fourteenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the Basel Convention, ninth meeting of the COP to the Rotterdam Convention, and ninth meeting of the COP to the Stockholm Convention was convened back-to-back from 29 April to 10 May 2019 in Geneva, Switzerland. The theme of this year’s meetings was “Clean Planet, Healthy People: Sound Management of Chemicals and Waste”.

India Ban Asbestos Network along with other networks across the globe participated in the 9th Conference of the Parties to the Rotterdam Convention.

The Rotterdam Convention is a multilateral treaty to promote shared responsibilities in relation to importation of hazardous chemicals. The convention promotes open exchange of information and calls on exporters of hazardous chemicals to use proper labelling, include directions on safe handling, and inform purchasers of any known restrictions or bans. Signatory nations can decide whether to allow or ban the importation of chemicals listed in the treaty, and exporting countries are obliged to make sure that producers within their jurisdiction comply. Listing of a chemical does not constitute a ban.

Chrysotile asbestos has been recommended for inclusion in Annex III of the Rotterdam Convention by the Convention’s independent scientific committee since the third COP. However, the current requirement for consensus of all Parties before listing means it has been blocked by a few countries who profit from its use and export.

A vigil and media conference was organised before the morning session of the CoP. It was organised at the entrance of the Convention Centre. During the morning vigil, the delegation members addressed the media and the audience about the urgency to list chrysotile asbestos in Annex III. It was also mentioned that the practicality of the convention itself will be in question if they fail to list chrysotile in this CoP too.

Mr. Phillip Hazleton, from Union Aid Abroad – APHEDA, Australia, voiced the demands of asbestos victims and trade union organizations to include chrysotile in Annex III saying that it was “shocking that the financial interests of just a few Parties can block the desires of the many to protect workers” from toxic exposures (Read More).

Mrs. Fiona Murie, Global Director Construction and Health and Safety of the Building and Wood Workers International emphasized that “They don’t care about the suffering and human costs, because it is not their class that is affected. We demand to be heard – chrysotile asbestos belongs in the last century, not this one.”

Ms. Pooja Gupta from India Ban Asbestos Network raised the concerns on how India is taking wrong sides and blocking the listing of Chrysotile in Annex III. India itself banned mining citing worker’s health as a prime reason in 1986 but still imports the raw fibre. “Groups working in India have identified thousands of victims with the help of doctors who are ILO certified. We hope that in this CoP, the government will take stand on behalf of those suffering from this disease”

The same day, the Russian pro-chrysotile delegation showcased “pro-chrysotile” activities and shouted slogans like “No Chrysotile Ban” and “Chrysotile Forever.” It was organised inside the venue near the main entrance so as to influence as many delegates as possible.

During our demonstration outside the venue May 7, 2019, BBC TV presenter Paul Rose supported the vigil and also reported on the ABAN demonstration. Paul Rose is a British television presenter who mainly works for the BBC. Paul Rose is an accomplished diver, mountain climber and explorer whose skills and interests led to his role as a BBC documentary presenter.

Subono Bono, a former worker in an asbestos product manufacturing plant in Indonesia,  now suffering from ARD, represented thousands of workers suffering from the disease or have died because of this. He voiced the lies that the government or the companies make in order to lieu the workers or investors saying that the ‘work environment are safe’ and in reality they have to work in most inhumane conditions. The open letter which was addressed to the delegates of the Rotterdam convention was also handed over to one of the officials of the convention by Subono himself.  The open letter seeks the delegates of CoP-9 to address the issue of Chrysotile listing which has been post-ponding ever since CoP-3 (when it was first introduced) along with testimonials from different groups/ representatives across the globe.

After the vigil and press conference, the delegation members had planned to demonstrate in front of the Russian Federation Office to the United Nations Office – ironically located in Avenue de la Paix (Peace Avenue) – and submit a copy of the Open Letter to COP9 delegates.

Unfortunately permission was not given for this activity so the protest was held under the “Broken Chair” sculpture, located in front of the United Nations Headquarters- Palais des nations. The action was covered by the Swiss media and the delegations were interviewed for their upcoming issue. The interview can be read here.

Revisions to Articles 16 and 22 of the Convention were mentioned. On the amendment to Article 22 (Adoption and amendment of annexes)– EU opposed both amendments, saying it would create a confusing situation in which Annex III would only apply to some parties. Acknowledging that three of its delegations held different views, the Asia-Pacific Region objected to the proposed amendments, noting implications for other articles.

Emphasizing that consensus should not be a tool for blocking progress, Switzerland explained the proposed Annex VII would allow parties who do not agree to a compliance mechanism to opt out.  Costa Rica, Canada, EU, The African Group, Colombia, Norway, Uruguay, Namibia, Mali, South Africa, Zambia, New Zealand, Liberia, Japan, Ghana, Benin, El Salvador, Nigeria, Kenya, Malaysia, The Maldives, Thailand, The Dominican Republic, Nepal, Senegal, Botswana, Chile, Côte D’ Ivoire, Honduras, Sudan, Vanuatu, Papua New Guinea, IPEN and PAN supported the decision of creation of Annex VII. While, North Korea, Cuba, Kazakhstan, China, India, Iran Kirgizstan, Qatar did not support amendment annex VII.

This is an important step as addition of new annex would help to facilitate the convention and the parties to list a chemical with an option to vote out by the parties in case not willing. On matters related to the Rotterdam Convention’s implementation, the COP addressed: the status of implementation; enhancing the Convention’s effectiveness; compliance, including a proposal to add a new Annex VII on compliance procedures and mechanisms; technical assistance; and financial resources[2].  Since, there was debate on the addition of new Annex in the convention it was decided to schedule the final decision for the next day.

During the second half of the Convention. The Secretariat introduced RC/ COP.9/5/Rev.1. Chair of the Chemical Review Committee (CRC), presented the Committee’s recommendations to list in Annex III. The seven chemicals were-

1. Fenthion- Sudan, Kenya, Ethiopia, and Uganda opposed listing.
2. Paraquat- Guatemala and Indonesia opposed listing.
3. Acetochlor- Argentina and Chile opposed listing
4. Carbosulfan- Kenya and India opposed listing.
5. HBCD (Hexabromocyclododecane)- Delegates adopted the decision (RC/COP.9/7)
6. Phorate – Delegates adopted the decision (RC/COP.9/8)

Chrysotile asbestos- The Russian Federation, Brazil, Argentina, Cuba, El Salvador, New Zealand, Zimbabwe, Iraq, Guatemala, South Africa, The Maldives, The USA, and The International Alliance of Trade Union Organizations “Chrysotile” supported maintaining decision-making by consensus. India once again showed that its Lobby with Russians are quite strong and that they will oppose the listing.

On Listing of Chrysotile Asbestos in Annex III- Citing lack of new evidence of effects on human health and the environment, India, Russian Federation, Kazakhstan, Syria, Zimbabwe, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, and the International Alliance of Trade Union Organizations “Chrysotile” Opposed Listing. Venezuela, Cuba, And Iran called for further discussions to understand the rationale of those opposed to listing.

The Fiber Cement Product Manufacturer’s Association (FCPMA) of India opposed listing, saying national governmental studies had shown no negative health impacts. Workers of Kazakhstan called for a distinction to be made between chrysotile and other forms of asbestos, noting that workers using cement with chrysotile asbestos were “all in good health.”

Since many countries cited lack of scientific data as a reason for opposing the listing of Chrysotile in Annex III, the World Health Organization (WHO) emphasised that all forms of asbestos cause cancer in humans. The International Labour Organization (ILO) highlighted that the ILO Asbestos Convention should not be used to justify continued use of asbestos.

Organizations like Solidar Suisse and National Toxics Network also urged for an immediate action to list chrysotile asbestos, emphasizing that millions of people die every year due to exposure siting that evidence linking chrysotile to disease is overwhelming and are publicly available.

During one session, Subono Bono, a victim of Asbestos Related Disease himself, spoke about the working conditions in the factory he used to work and how the lie of socially responsible industries are spread across such international conventions. Non-governmental Organizations showed solidarity during his speech and encouraged the listing of Chrysotile asbestos.

“We know the lie of safe use. I worked in inhuman, dusty working conditions without real PPE. This made me and my friends often experience pain, coughing, shortness of breath, fatigue. Examinations that companies did were company secrets and not accessible. We demand, at this meeting, chrysotile can be included in the list of Appendix III or that the Convention is reformed to ensure this. Our hope is that all delegates here support it.”

Issues that have eluded consensus include establishment of a compliance mechanism and listing of several chemicals recommended by the Chemical Review Committee (CRC) for inclusion in Annex III, including Carbosulfan, Fenthion, and Paraquat Dichloride formulations, as well as chrysotile asbestos. These chemicals were listed on the agenda for next CoP. Rotterdam Chrysotile Alliance (ROCA), Asian Ban Asbestos Network and others expressed anger at those parties blocking the listing of chemicals.