GLOBAL ASBESTOS PANORAMA 2010 – THE WINDS OF CHANGE
Laurie Kazan-Allen
Presented at: meeting of the Asian Ban Asbestos Network
Bandung, Indonesia, October 17, 2010

At the beginning of this month, 1 the 19th Commonwealth Games opened in New Delhi.
With thousands of athletes and support staff from 71 countries attending, these games
were the largest sporting event in India's history as well as the most expensive
Commonwealth Games ever held. Although estimates for the price tag vary, the final bill
could exceed $10bn. 2You would have thought that such a high profile event would have been the perfectoccasion to showcase India’s building products and construction expertise. Oddly,
enough, however, one substance widely used in building products throughout India was
not invited to the party. 3 Like Cinderella, asbestos was left at home, hidden away frompublic view. 4
Despite attempts by activists to obtain an explanation of the Government’s boycott ofasbestos for this prestigious project, no such explanation was forthcoming. It is not hard
to see why: politically and commercially, the authorities were between a rock and a hardplace. If asbestos had been incorporated in the infrastructure designed for the Games,
quite apart from the fact that workers’ health would have been endangered, it would havegenerated negative publicity and jeopardized the participation of international athletes. It
is unlikely that a world class runner or top notch gymnast would consciously expose
themselves to a substance categorized as a class 1 carcinogen. If, on the other hand, theauthorities had publicly prohibited the use of asbestos, a double standard would berevealed whereby buildings destined for use by foreigners were to be asbestos-free while
those for local people were not.
On its own, India’s prohibition of asbestos at the Games could be seen as an isolatedcase. However, when viewed in conjunction with the fact that China, the world’s biggest
user of asbestos, banned asbestos from the 2008 Olympics, a trend begins to emerge. If
the world’s two largest asbestos consumers refuse to compromise their international
standing by using asbestos in infrastructure prepared for major events, how can they
maintain the illusion that asbestos can be used safely. After all, human biology being
what it is, a substance which can cause respiratory disease and cancer in English
swimmers and Australian divers can very well do so in Indian and Chinese citizens.

1

The Commonwealth Games opened on October 3, 2010.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_Games
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-11460568
3
According to data from the United States Geological Survey, from the time the games were awarded toIndia (2003) until the building of the infrastructure was completed (2010), nearly 2 million tonnes ofasbestos fiber had been consumed in India.
4Kazan-Allen L. Why was Asbestos not used at the Commonwealth Games?
www.ibasecretariat.org
21

The decision not to use asbestos in these circumstances illustrates a major shift in theglobal consensus on asbestos. The actions taken by the Indian and Chinese government
reflect how much has changed in the perception of the asbestos risk. Whereas once upona time policy makers talked blithely about the “controlled use of asbestos”, nowadays
nothing short of “no use” is acceptable to civil society. This change has been the result ofyears of consensus building by asbestos victims, trade unionists, health and safety
campaigners, medical and legal professionals and other members of civil society who
have reached out not only to the grassroots but also to governments, international
agencies and social partners.
A brief look at some salient statistics reveals just how much has changed in the first
decade of this century.
Changing Panorama of Asbestos Use: the Years 2000 and 2010
YearNational Bans

Asbestos
Consuming
Nations 5

Regional Consumption(% of Global Usage)
Asia
Europe South America

2000

18664735102010 652396426

8

Note: Africa is not included in this table; in 2000, Africa was responsible for 6% of global usage, but in 2009, less than
1% of global usage occured in Africa, according to USGS data.

There has been a 41% decrease in the number of asbestos consuming countries and nearlya 3-fold increase in the number of countries banning its use. An analysis of the timing ofnational bans is informative.
Implementation of National Bans 7
PeriodYears

1982-1991 8
1992-2001 9
2002-2010 1010109National Bans
Adopted81529

No. per Year
0.8
1.5
3.25

Only countries using more than 500 tonnes of asbestos a year were included.
The asbestos usage data are derived from USGS figures for apparent consumption; since no data for 2010
are available yet the figures for 2009 were used as a guide to likely consumption in 2010. It should also be
noted that in the USGS datasets , Europe is taken to include Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgystan, Tajikstan,Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan.
7See information on national bans available at:
http://ibasecretariat.org/alpha_ban_list.php
http://ibasecretariat.org/chron_ban_list.php
8The 8 countries which adopted asbestos bans during the period 1982-1991 were: Sweden, Denmark,Iceland, Norway, Israel, Switzerland, Austria, Netherlands.
9The 15 countries which adopted bans during the period 1992-2001 were: Finland, Italy, Germany, Brunei,
Kuwait, France, Bahrain, Poland, Belgium, Saudi Arabia, UK, Ireland, Latvia, Chile, Argentina.
10The 29 countries which adopted bans during the period 2002-2010 were: Spain, Luxembourg, Uruguay,Australia, Honduras, South Africa, Japan, Slovenia, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Greece,62

In the last nine years, the number of national bans adopted exceeded those achieved overthe previous twenty. Perhaps by 2020, even countries like China, India and Russia will
have acknowledged the deadly hazards of exposure to all types of asbestos and banned its
use.
Shifting Perceptions
For decades, vested asbestos interests maintained a stranglehold on national asbestos
debates, in some countries they still do. Raising public awareness of the asbestos hazard
required redefining the questions being asked and the voices being heard in these debates.
In democratic countries, the only thing which changes government policies is publicpressure. That asbestos has been banned in 52 countries owes much to the collaborative
efforts of asbestos victims groups, trade unions, NGOs, and members of the global ban
asbestos community.
In the main, the initial investigations undertaken by asbestos victims groups related tocountry-specific issues; making common cause with social partners, they pressed forimprovements in medical care for the injured, the introduction of government benefits
and the adoption of legislation to minimize hazardous exposures. The work of bi-lateraland international networks which were formed by these pioneers of global action
revolutionized the perception of asbestos throughout the world. The formation of theInternational Ban Asbestos Secretariat (IBAS) in 1999 marked a turning point in theglobal campaign to ban asbestos. IBAS works closely with members of the ban asbestos
network to organize meetings, support outreach programs, produce written and visualmaterial and facilitate communication. The IBAS website provides the ban asbestos
network with a window to the world. Detailing news of developments, uploading stories
and widely disseminating information, increases the visibility of the network andcontributes to the momentum being achieved by ban asbestos campaigners.
An example of how national bodies coalesced with social partners to tackle issues ofmutual concern arose in regards to the operations of a United Nations protocol: The
Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous
Pesticides and Chemical in International Trade (Rotterdam Convention). 11 The
Convention is a multilateral agreement intended to limit the damage done by exporting
harmful chemicals and pesticides to developing countries. Initially, Conventionprocedures worked well and substances deemed hazardous were added to a list of goods
subjected to minimal export requirements. 12 All this changed, when the Convention’s
Chemical Review Committee recommended that action be taken on chrysotile asbestos.
In 2004, 2005 and 2006, a minority of asbestos stakeholder governments derailed theConvention’s discussions on listing chrysotile.
Attempts to highlight the obstructive tactics of the asbestos bloc began in 2004 when an
IBAS representative, present at the Rotterdam Convention deliberations as an officialobserver, denounced as “a misrepresentation” a claim made by the Ukraine delegate.
Hungary, Lithuania, Malta, Romania, Portugal, Slovakia, Egypt, Jordan, Gabon, Seychelles, Croatia, New
Caledonia, South Korea, Oman, Qatar, Mozambique.
11
http://www.pic.int/home.php?type=s&id=77
12
The Prior Informed Consent List of the Rotterdam Convention.

3

Referring to a paper published by Dr. Richard Lemen, the Ukraine delegate had allegedthat Lemen believed “there is not an adequate basis for banning (chrysotile) asbestos.” 13
In fact, Dr. Lemen’s paper concluded:“chrysotile per se can induce mesothelioma…These findings along with the resultsof the experimental studies leave no doubt that the scientific evidence supports thecarcinogenicity of chrysotile alone in the induction of mesothelioma.” 14
Having observed first-hand the lies being told and the efforts of vested interests tosabotage the Convention, 15 IBAS, in conjunction with the Building and Woodworkers
Federation, produced a publication entitled: Chrysotile asbestos: Hazardous to Humans,
Deadly to the Rotterdam Convention 16 which was distributed at the Convention’s 2006
meeting. By 2008, it had become clear that entrenched opposition to listing chrysotile
was in danger of destroying this much valued and much needed United Nations initiative.
In recognition of this threat, the Rotterdam Convention Alliance (ROCA) wasestablished; members of the global ban asbestos network played a vital part in its
formation and operation. 17 At the 2008 meeting of the Convention, ROCA members
constituted a highly visible and articulate counter voice to the industry lobby. They
consulted with national delegations, issued daily press releases and held a well-attended
side meeting. The next meeting of the Convention is in eight months. 18 As groups
representing populations in major asbestos consuming countries, ABAN and Ina-Ban 19
have a vital role to play in ROCA. 20
ROCA is just one example of the potential of virtual networks and channels ofcommunication. The formation in 2009 of the Asian Ban Asbestos Network (ABAN) has
proved to be of immense importance. Examples of ABAN’s achievements are many:•the development of video clips on asbestos in 10 Asian languages;

13Kazan-Allen L. Chrysotile asbestos: hazardous to humans, deadly to the Rotterdam Convention. 2006.
page 29-30. http://ibasecretariat.org/chrys_hazard_rott_conv_06.pdf
14Lemen R. Chrysotile Asbestos as a Cause of Mesothelioma. Int J Occup Environ Health 2004;10:233239.
15The Earth Negotiations Bulletin Vol. 15 No. 100 Page 2, reported one of the IBAS interventions asfollows: “During discussion on how to reflect the lack of consensus on chrysotile asbestos in the INC-11
report, INTERNATIONAL BAN ASBESTOS SECRETARIAT said that the comments of all delegates on
the issue of chrysotile asbestos should be included in the report so that asbestos victims know the positionsof their countries’ delegations on this issue.” http://www.iisd.ca/download/pdf/enb15100e.pdf
16
http://ibasecretariat.org/chrys_hazard_rott_conv_06.pdf
17
The Rotterdam Convention Alliance is an “Alliance of Environmental, Labour and Health organizations
around the world working to promote the full and effective implementation of the Rotterdam Convention.”
See: http://ibasecretariat.org/cop4_dossier.php
18
The fifth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Rotterdam Convention (COP 5) will be held inGeneva, Switzerland, from 20-24 June 2011.
http://www.pic.int/home.php?type=b&id=171&sid=27&tid=41
19
In the years 2005-2009, Indonesia used 305,511 tonnes of asbestos. In 2009, Indonesia’s use of 82,302
tonnes of asbestos made it the world’s 6th largest user.
20On October 11, 2010, news was received that the documents needed for the accession by Russia to theRotterdam Convention have been sent to the State Parliament. Although Russian observers haveparticipated boisterously in previous Convention meetings, Russian membership would entitle it to takepart in Convention negotiations. It is likely that, as before, actions by Russia would be aimed at blocking
the listing of chrysotile. See: http://www.iisd.ca/download/pdf/enb15100e.pdf page 2.

4•••
•

ABAN participation in or sponsorship of meetings in India, Thailand, Italy,Malaysia, Belgium, UK, Korea, Indonesia, Japan;
ABAN events to mark the visit by the Quebec Premier to India in 2010;
protests in 10 countries by ABAN members in June and July 2010 on Quebec
Day and Canada Day;press release regarding potential investment from India and the UK for theJeffrey Asbestos Mine, Quebec.

The launch in October 2010 of a new campaigning group in Indonesia – Ina-Ban – is thelatest example of the collaborative spirit which is propelling forward the ban asbestos
campaign in Asia. IBAS welcomes this new group and pays tribute to founding members
whose energy, enthusiasm and hard work have been crucial to Ina-Ban’s formation.
The Future?
While our commitment to the objective of banning asbestos remains firm, financial andtime constraints mean that our priorities must be clearly delineated. To this end, IBAS
will continue to work with grassroots campaigners on asbestos initiatives. Consideringthat teenagers in asbestos-consuming countries could one day become victims ofasbestos-related diseases, IBAS proposes to develop an outreach project aimed atyounger people. To this end, in 2011 we would like to work with groups in Indonesia,
India and Brazil on the planning of a competition to generate asbestos awareness amongst
high school and college students. This project could make use of new technology as wellas traditional methods of communication. Prizes, funded by IBAS, would be awarded bygrassroots groups to the schools of the winning competitors and runners up. Should theresults of the pilot scheme prove satisfactory, this competition could be run in otherasbestos-using countries in 2012.
To stimulate national asbestos debates, we propose consulting grassroots groups on thepublication in 2011/2012 of a monograph entitled: Global Asbestos Hotspots. An
investigation of the current situation in major asbestos consuming and producing
countries would provide a valuable resource for campaigners in their discussions withlegislators, journalists, grassroots, consumers and citizens’ groups. And finally, with aneye on the June 2011 meeting of the Rotterdam Convention, we need to ensure that thevoice of asbestos victims is heard. Consultation on how this is best achieved is urgent.
Concluding Thoughts
In the last 10 years, the efforts of the ban asbestos network have been spectacularlysuccessful. Working together we have:•••••mounted asbestos conferences, workshops, seminars and events on six continents;
produced leaflets, literature and video material in dozens of languages;
developed an authoritative counter voice to asbestos industry vested interests;
established a respected online profile;engaged with social partners to progress a dialogue with international agencies
and national authorities.

In this time we have learned some invaluable lessons:5

••
•
•

no one ever gave asbestos victims anything they didn’t fight for;wherever rights have been obtained, they will be attacked;
victims, their families and communities play a vital role in the campaign to banasbestos;
we are stronger together than we are apart.

6