A working group report handed in on 3 July 2007 to the Commission�s DG Enterprise endorsed a continued derogation that allows European industry to keep on using asbestos. A 1999 Directive which outlawed asbestos use in the EU granted a derogation for installations that use electrolysis cells. This is an industrial process involving asbestos diaphragms, used mainly by the chlor-alkali industry. When the Directive was adopted, it was agreed that the derogation would end on 1 January 2008.
In a note sent to the Commission in June 2008, the ETUC unpicks the technical case made by DG Enterprise to justify maintaining the exception. The trade union organization argues that the derogation must end now, because substitute technologies (asbestos-free membranes) already exist and are being used by most European chemical manufacturers. Reports suggest that US chemical giant Dow Chemicals is the main industry player to hold out against scrapping asbestos diaphragm technology in Europe, even though it is planning to replace that technology in its US facilities.

• The ETUC note
• The DG Enterprise document
• Ban on asbestos diaphragms in the chlorine-related chemical industry and efforts toward a worldwide ban
  Giannasi, F. (2007) International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health

Asbestos has been banned throughout the European Union since 1 January 2005. But the joy is tinged with bitterness. Joy at a ban won after a long and difficult struggle by trade unions and victim groups. Bitter, because the time lost in getting to a total asbestos ban still leaves a death sentence hanging over hundreds of thousands of people.

Nor is it the end of the story. The huge quantities of asbestos used in Europe throughout the 20th century will continue to kill tens of thousands of people every year for the next two decades. European Union experts estimate that asbestos-related cancers will cause approximately 500 000 deaths up to the year 2030 in Western Europe alone. Legacy asbestos - especially in waste disposal and building asbestos-stripping operations - puts workers and the community at immense risk. The high cost of these alone should be enough to show up the flaws in industry arguments against replacing carcinogens in production processes. ...

• Read the full report
• Other articles published in the HESA Newsletter on asbestos

European Union
The European Union's directive 1999/77/EC bans the placing on the market and use of products containing asbestos with effect from 2005. And the 2003/18/EC directive prohibits all activities in which workers are exposed to asbestos fibres in asbestos extraction or production/processing of asbestos products, with effect from 2006.

• Directive 1999/77/EC
• Directive 2003/18/EC

The TUTB took a strongly proactive line in the European debates which eventually led to the marketing and use of asbestos being banned in the EU.
[read more]

Asbestos and the Rotterdam Convention
The Rotterdam Convention entered into force on 24 February 2004. Adopted on 10 September 1998, the Convention establishes a "Prior Informed Consent procedure," a means for formally obtaining and disseminating the decisions of importing countries as to whether they wish to receive future shipments of specified chemicals and for ensuring compliance with these decisions by exporting countries. The Convention contains a range of 39 highly toxic chemicals. Since the adoption of the Convention, Canada has been lobbying to block the addition of chrysotile to the list of Prior Informed Consent substances.

Asbestos should be covered by the Rotterdam Convention (ETUC Press release, 30/10/2008)

Dresden Declaration on the Protection of Workers against Asbestos (September 2003)
The European Conference on Asbestos adopted a declaration for a worldwide ban on asbestos. The European Commission and the Senior Labour Inspectors' Committee together with the German Labour Inspectorate and the Federation of the German Berufsgenossenschaften have organised in 2003 a European Conference on Asbestos. The Conference has received the support of the International Labour Organisation.

• Dresden Declaration on the Protection of Workers against Asbestos
• The ETUC declaration for the Dresden Conference
  

Asbestos and the Basel Convention
Dismantling of ships on the agenda of the 6th Conference of the Basel Convention.
The 6th Conference of the Basel Convention on hazardous wastes held in Geneva on December 9, 2003. One topic concerned hazardous substances from decommissioned ships, as asbestos.
About 700 ships are scrapped every year. Most of them in Asian shipbreaking locations. Most of the ships built in the 60s and 70s are full of asbestos and other toxic substances. Only three signatories have not yet ratified the Basel Convention : Afghanistan, Haiti and the United States of America.

Towards  asbestos ban: national situations
Argentina | Australia | Brazil | Canada | Chile | Croatia | Egypt | Honduras | India | Japan | Peru | Philippines | South Africa | USA | Uruguay |

The revision of the Community directive concerning the use of asbestos has created a better legal framework in the EU countries. The directive of 27 March 2003 demonstrates a certain amount of progress. The new wording of Article 5 means, in practice, that it is forbidden to continue making materials or products containing asbestos which are intended for export. Other positive elements are the decrease in the exposure limit to 0.1 fibres/cm3 and the extension of the directive's scope.
However, the directive does have certain deficiencies, notably:

• the revised directive does not cover self-employed workers. This means that employers wishing to bypass the directive can have work done by a self-employed worker without having to adopt the specified prevention measures;
• it should be ensured that all demolition work on buildings or installations containing asbestos and all asbestos clean-ups are performed by companies approved on the basis of adequate criteria (workers' training, high-quality protection equipment, experience in this type of work, etc.). The current provisions in the directive are too vague in this regard and lag behind the International Labour Organisation's Convention 162 of 1986  which stipulates that such work may only be carried out by employers or entrepreneurs whom the competent authority has recognised as being qualified and has authorised to perform such work;
• the requirements concerning reporting of work involving asbestos exposure should be reinforced. There should be a list of the exposed workers so as to allow effective monitoring and health surveillance. This is all the more important since, in the majority of Community states, the registers of workers exposed to asbestos have some serious deficiencies.
• Directive 2003/18/EC of 27 March 2003 on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to asbestos at work

Ban asbestos now! The International Metalworkers� Federation (IMF) launched a campaign for a global ban on asbestos
There is only one useful thing you can do with asbestos. Ban it.
Unions are working towards a worldwide ban. This means switching from asbestos mining, processing and use, to alternative products. It means industrial regeneration to replace deadly jobs with safe and sustainable jobs.
But we still face the deadly legacy. This is why IMF is backing its affiliated unions in campaigns for compensation and justice.

• IMF Website

Asbestos is still haunting - for how long ? Declaration from the Nordic Federation of Building and Wood Workers' on asbestos
The Nordic countries were among the first in the world to realize that there is only one safe way of protection against the dangerous asbestos: Ban on any kind of use. Therefore in the Nordic countries bans were gradually introduced from beginning of the 1970�es and to the end of the 1980�es.

• Declaration approved at NFBWW Annual Meeting in Copenhagen 2 November 2007

Recognition of asbestos-related occupational diseases is still confronted by numerous obstacles in the European Union. This social injustice is aggravated by the absence of harmonised criteria for recognising occupational diseases. There are still significant differences between recognition of mesothelioma in the different countries of the European Union. There are strong grounds to suppose that non-recognition of asbestos-related lung cancers is even more widespread. The data on asbestosis also indicate considerable disparities. Whereas the EU average for asbestosis cases recognised as occupational diseases were 30 per million workers in 1995, the figure was 1 per million in Portugal, 28 in the United Kingdom, 30 in France, 59 in Germany and 96 in Belgium.

If it is imperative that recognition of asbestos-related illnesses be improved within the framework of compensation systems for occupational diseases, it might be useful to establish specific funds to allow better compensation for the victims (including self-employed workers, family members who have been subjected to domestic exposure, etc.). France's and the Netherlands' experiences with such funds could serve as a reference model for other countries.

Recognition of occupational diseases should be accompanied by an improvement in the therapies available.

Legal proceedings against those directly responsible for workers' exposure to asbestos are all the more important because the compensation systems for occupational diseases only provide lump-sum payments which are relatively low compared to the total compensation paid where fault can be proven. From the political point of view, it is time to put a stop to the tolerance from which crime in the sphere of occupational health has benefited in the past.

The Appellate Body stated that the French ban is compatible with WTO rules (March 2001).
The WTO Panel released its report on 18 September 2000.

The TUTB alerted trade unions to the importance of this case, which could have undermined years of struggle to get asbestos recognized for the danger it is, protect the health of workers exposed to it, compensate those it has damaged, and get it outlawed throughout Europe.

• Asbestos disputes in the WTO : battle won - but not the war
• WTO asbestos ban hearing : update
• Asbestos@WTO
• The WTO asbestos dispute: workplace health dictated by trade rules?
• Time to come clean

The TUTB asked Sam Zia-Zarifi and Mary Footer of the Erasmus University in Rotterdam to analyse the row over asbestos between Canada and France in the World Trade Organization. Their report will help inform the debate on the problems of expanding the WTO's reach into other areas, especially labour/social policy. The issues raised by this dispute - the precautionary principle, health risk assessments, the choice of experts on the panel, the standing of civil society, especially the unions, to put over their views on the marketing of products mainly affecting workers' health - are indicative of the forthcoming debates and the bounds which need setting to the sphere of activity of organizations like the WTO.

• The vital issues in the WTO asbestos dispute

Other comments on the WTO asbestos dispute:

• WTO confidential: the case of asbestos, by Barry Castleman
  Paper published in: International Journal of Health Services, volume 32, 2002, pp. 489-501
• EC-Asbestos: The World Trade Organization on Trial for its Handling of Occupational Health and Safety Issues, by Mary Footer and Saman Zia-Zarifi
  Paper published in: Melbourne Journal of International Law, Volume 3, May 2002, Number 1

• Asbestos mortality: a Canadian export
  Amir Attaran, David R. Boyd and Matthew B. Stanbrook (2008) CMAJ: Canadian Medical Association Journal
• Vermiculite, respiratory disease, and asbestos exposure in Libby, Montana: update of a cohort mortality study
  Sullivan, P. A. (2007) Environmental Health Perspectives
• Cancer mortality and incidence of mesothelioma in a cohort of wives of asbestos workers in Casale Monferrato, Italy
  Ferrante, D. et al. (2007) Environmental Health Perspectives.
• Ban on Asbestos Diaphragms in the Chlorine-related Chemical Industry and Efforts toward a Worldwide Ban
  Giannasi F.  (2007) International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health
• Epidemiological surveillance of effects from asbestos exposure: French news
  (2007). Bulletin �pid�miologique hebdomadaire
• Asbestos: Protecting the future and coping with the past
  Annie Leprince, et al. (2007) Paper presented at the World Social Security Forum, 29th ISSA General Assembly
• Asbestos: Towards a worldwide ban
  A booklet by the ISSA (International Social Security Association). Also available in French, Chinese, Arabic, Spanish and Portuguese.
• Asbestos causes cancer among construction workers
  translation of an article in the magazine of the Danish Confederations of Construction workers� Unions, the BAT-Cartel, by Lars Vedsmand
• A licence to kill: The dirty legacy of asbestos
  IDSA, 2007
• Chrysotile asbestos: Hazardous to humans, deadly to the Rotterdam Convention
  Building & Woodworkers International and the International Ban Asbestos Secretariat, 2006
• Banning asbestos in Asia: Campaigns and strategies by the Asian Network for the Rights of Occupational Accident Victims
  Pandita S. (2006) International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health. 12 (3).
• Asbestos: The human cost of corporate greed
  European United Left/Nordic Green Left, 2006
• Le drame de l'amiante en France : comprendre, mieux r�parer, en tirer des le�ons pour l'avenir
  French Senate report, 26/10/2005
• Le drame de l'amiante en France : comprendre, mieux r�parer, en tirer des le�ons pour l'avenir
  French Senate, report of hearings, 26/10/2005
• Insight on cancer: Environmental exposures and cancer
  Canadian Cancer Society, 2005
• Het asbestdrama: Eternit en de gevolgen van honderd jaar asbestcement
  Bob Ruers and Nico Schouten. Rotterdam, Wetenschappelijk Bureau SP, 2005
• Collegium Ramazzini Statement on Banning Asbestos
  (2005) American Journal of Industrial Medicine
• Respiratory diseases linked to exposure to products such as asbestos: are preventive measures sufficient ?
  A report by Philippe Hur� (INRS, France) for the 28th General Assembly of ISSA, Beijing 12-18 September 2004
• Special issue - Asbestos dispatches
  (2004) International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health. 9 (3).
• The asbestos war
  Laurie Kazan-Allen (2003) International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health. 9 (3).
• Cape Plc: South African mineworkers� quest for justice
  Richard Meeran (2003) International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health
• Asbestos mining in South Africa, 1893-2002
  J. Mcculloch (2003) International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health. 9 (3). 
• Asbestos ban
  Special report. TUTB Newsletter, n� 17
• Chrysotile asbestos health assessment of alternatives
  NIOSH, 2001
• Chrysotile asbestos technical assessment of alternatives
  NIOSH, 2001

• IBAS:International Ban Asbestos Secretariat
• EPA: Official 2001 Asbestos Health Effects Conference Web site
• ICFTU: www.icftu.org
• WTO: www.wto.org
• Argentina: Asbestos victims Association (ASAREA)
• Australia: Queensland Asbestos Related Diseases Support Society
• Australia: Gippsland Asbestos Related Diseases Support Inc.
• Belgium: Asbestos Victims Association
• Brazil: Asbestos exposed persons Association (ABREA)
• Canada: Ban asbestos Canada
• Italy: Asbestos victims Association
• Italy: Informative campaign on asbetos
• France: Asbestos victims Association
• France: Ban Asbestos France
• Netherlands: Comit� Asbestslachtoff
• Netherlands: Asbestslachtoffers (IAS)
• Switzerland: SUVA web page
• Switzerland: Verein f�r Asbestopfer
• UK: TUC Online - Special feature on asbestos
• UK: The British Asbestos Newsletter
• UK: Greater Manchester Asbestos Victims Support Group (GMAVSG)
• USA: Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO)
• USA: NIOSH Site on Asbestos
• USA: Oklahoma State University: Safety Website On Line - Asbestos
• On shipsbreaking, see Greenpeace site

Contact person: