Occupational and Environmental health and justice and workers’ rights groups from Asia, Europe and North America today issued a joint statement condemning TCO Development – the Swedish certification organization – for awarding its first “Sustainability Certification” to Samsung’s Galaxy S4 Smartphone, in spite of the fact that Samsung has been severely criticized in South Korea and elsewhere for its dismal occupational safety and health record. More than 180 young Samsung workers have developed occupational diseases such as cancer and 70 of them have already died after having been exposed to hazardous chemicals on the job. In addition, a recent leakage of hydrogen fluoride in a Samsung semiconductor factory in Hwaseong killed another worker. (See the references below for further details).

“TCO Development’s action amounts to ‘green washing’ of the worst kind” said Sanjiv Pandita, Executive Director of Asia Monitor Resource Centre, based in Hong Kong. “This perverse certification award sends the wrong signals which reward a company that has increased its market share while at the same time sacrificing the health of its workers. TCO Development has severely undermined its reputation by ignoring Samsung’s treatment of its workers.

Samsung is a company which has been at the forefront consistently in denying basic workers’ rights such as the right to organise, unionise and a right to a safe working environment – they certainly do not deserve recognition and credentials of this nature.”

“This action dishonors the memory of so many innocent young people who sacrificed their lives while working for Samsung” added Dr. Jeong-ok Kong, an occupational health physician working with the Supporters for Health and Right of People in Semiconductor Industry (SHARPS), which is based in South Korea. Data collected by SHARPS and submitted to the South Korean government details how more than 180 young Samsung production workers have contracted cancer and other chronic diseases.

“This kind of irresponsible action by TCO Development gives the terms “green label” and “sustainability” a bad name and indicates that either TCO Development is unaware of Samsung’s callous disregard for their workers’ health or has decided to ignore the disturbing pattern of occupational illness, which would be even worse,” said Ted Smith, Coordinator of International Campaign for Responsible Technology, based in San Jose California. “TCO Development must not claim that its certification rewards ‘sustainable’ behavior – including social issues and occupational health – while at the same time failing to acknowledge the well documented cancer cluster at Samsung.”

“We are very disappointed in TCO Development because of its actions in this case” explained Hilda Palmer, Chair of the National Hazards Campaign in the UK. “We’ve come to expect credible actions from TCO Development and we believe that the only way to correct this action is for TCO Development to withdraw its certification of Samsung’s S4 Galaxy and go back to the drawing board. TCO Development must base its certifications based on the real world and require that a certified company have an exemplary record on occupational and environmental health as well as strict adherence to ILO requirements, and not base their decision merely on modest, unenforceable procedural niceties.”

“Sustainability certification is far too simple a tool to ensure respect for human rights in the complex global electronics” supply chain, added Pauline Overeem, Coordinator of Good Electronics, based in Amsterdam. “To address the grave labour issues in electronics manufacturing including the industry’s failure to provide safe workplaces, workers should have a say about their working and employment conditions. Enabling labour rights such as the freedom of association and the right to bargain collectively are crucial. Samsung is clearly not the right example here.”

References:

• “Leukemia and non-Hodgkin lymphoma in semiconductor industry workers in Korea”

By Inah Kim, Hyun J. Kim, Sin Y. Lim, & Jungok Kongyoo, International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, 2012 VOL. 18 NO. 2. -http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/maney/oeh/2012/00000018/00000002/art00011

• “A heroic struggle to understand the risk of cancers among workers in the electronics industry: the case of Samsung” - http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/maney/oeh/2012/00000018/00000002/art00002

•  The number of occupational diseases from Samsung, found by SHARPS:

• Korean court supports Samsung workers claim for occupational illness: http://stopsamsung.wordpress.com/2011/06/25/a-historical-but-partial-victory-of-leukemia-victims-of-samsung-semiconductor-factory-court-orders-compensation/
• HF leak at Samsung:  http://stopsamsung.wordpress.com/2013/02/05/samsung-continues-to-cover-up-fatal-chemical-leaks-with-more-lies/
• http://stopsamsung.wordpress.com/2013/02/27/fatal-gas-leaks-at-samsung-jan-27-28/

———————————————————————————————————————————-

Background of the TCO Development Sustainability Certification (excerpts from TCO documents)

http://tcodevelopment.com/news/samsung-galaxy-s4-first-to-achieve-sustainability-certification-for-smartphones/

“Criteria in TCO Development Certified Smartphones are developed from a life cycle perspective, including requirements for socially responsible manufacturing, health/safety and the reduction of hazardous materials. Product compliance is verified by an independent, accredited third party.”

A TCO Certified smartphone must meet requirements in the following areas:

• Socially responsible manufacturing
• Environment
• Ergonomics /health & safety

The criteria for TCO Development Certified include environmental and social aspects, and have been broadened from product focus to also include the production phase. This is a result of increased expectations around the world to respect human rights in the production and development of the products.

http://tcodevelopment.com/files/2013/05/TCO_Certified_Smartphones_1.0.pdf

B.7 Corporate Social Responsibility (note that these criteria are procedural, not substantive with no metrics)

B.7.1.1 General Clarifications

TCO Development is from this version of the criteria taking the next step in relation to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) by introducing an extended mandate regarding supply chain responsibility, since the way in which products are produced is gaining importance for consumers as well as professional buyers. Within the ICT industry supply chain responsibility is increasingly seen as a hygiene determinant.

We aim to be a sustainability label that assures good products in three relevant areas – environmental, social and ergonomics. We want the label to be proof for compliance with public procurement ethical criteria as well as with private sector CSR polices.

The Social performance criteria are based on the eight ILO core conventions and local legislation. This stipulates minimum standards as for the situation in the production facilities. ILO (International Labour Organization) is a United Nations specialized agency with the aim to promote social justice and humane working conditions.

B.7.1.1.1 Requires membership in the Electronic Industry Citizenship Coalition (EICC)

Download attachment of full statement with the list of organisations who have endorsed the statement

Photos of Several victims of Samsung

The appellate court rejected Georgia-Pacific’s argument that the documents were protected by attorney-client privilege and should therefore not be disclosed. Normally, attorney-client privilege is treated as sacrosanct in the U.S. In exceptional circumstances, however, that privilege can be overruled. The appeal judges decided that this was an exceptional situation and upheld an earlier court decision which ruled that an in camera review of the documents should be held in order to determine whether the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege applied.

The five judges noted that the crime-fraud exception encompasses “a fraudulent scheme, an alleged breach of fiduciary duty or an accusation of some other wrongful conduct’”.

“Advice in furtherance of a fraudulent or unlawful goal cannot be considered sound. Rather advice in furtherance of such goals is socially perverse, and the client’s communications seeking such advice are not worthy of protection”.

Read More

• Whereas the rapid growth of the electronics industry has been accompanied by massive increased use of toxic chemical substances and an increase in adverse health outcomes during manufacturing and end of life stages;
• Whereas there has been a dramatic increase in the production and use of electrical and electronic products, including a global supply chain that works through a complicated web of subcontractors, often located in Asia;
• Whereas weak, or nonexistent regulations, lack of information about the chemicals to which they are being exposed, insufficient oversight, and a failure to consistently report and track disease patterns associated with the industry compound the problem in many Asian manufacturing facilities;
• Whereas the American Public Health Association (APHA) in a resolution at its annual meeting in San Francisco on October 31, 2012 called on the global electronics’ industry, public health officials and international agencies to step up efforts to protect workers and communities, citing well documented adverse health effects caused by many toxic chemicals used in the manufacture of electronic and electrical products worldwide.
• Whereas the 3rd International Conference on Chemicals Management (ICCM3) took place from 16 – 21 September 2012 in Nairobi, Kenya and ICCM3 met to assess progress on implementation of the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (SAICM);
• Whereas ICCM3 contained over 400 delegates, representing 122 governments, 19 international organizations, and 79 NGOs from 31 countries;
• Whereas ICCM3 decided to add electronics to the Global Plan of Action (GPA) and continue work on this topic. Since many countries base their implementation of SAICM on activities contained in the Global Plan of Action, it was significant that adding electronics to the Plan helps elevate official work on the topic.
• Whereas the resolution adopted at ICCM3 for continued work encourages use of the Vienna recommendations to address the hazards in the lifecycle of electronics which create an international set of best practice resources on these topics. (See the report from the Vienna meeting including its Key Messages and full recommendations from all three stages of the lifecycle; upstream (design), midstream (manufacturing) and downstream (waste):

http://www.saicm.org/images/saicm_documents/iccm/ICCM3/Meeting%20documents/INF%20Documents/ICCM3_INF24_Report%20e-waste%20workshop.pdf )

Be it resolved that ANROEV endorses and fully supports these recommendations to protect workers and communities affected by the global electronics industry, and in particular support the following key general recommendations from SAICM:

• The development and full implementation of tools that lead to progress in the development of designs that reduce and eliminate the use of hazardous chemicals in the production of electrical and electronic products
• Health surveillance – Business standards and practices for tracking and disclosing the presence of hazardous chemicals in the manufacturing, use and end-of-life stages of electrical and electronic products to ensure that workers and communities have the right to know which hazards they are being exposed to
• Prevention through design – Tools and information on potential safer substitutes for chemicals of concern in electrical and electronic product applications
• Green purchasing strategies of businesses and Governments
• Extended producer responsibility policies of businesses and Governments
• Provisional strategies and actions in design and manufacturing that should be implemented until elimination is possible or safer substitutes are available

In addition, we support the following specific recommendations from SAICM:

• Compile and communicate lists of chemicals of concern to human health and/or the environment in electronic products and those used in the production of electronic products
• Encourage approaches for green design by identifying, quantifying, and disclosing  materials of concern and identifying the tools and best practices that advance design for hazardous chemical reduction, elimination and safe substitution
• Promote sustainable production and pollution prevention and encourage sustainable consumption
• Prioritize reduction of exposure to electronics production workers by identifying and implementing state of the art industrial hygiene monitoring for all hazardous chemicals used in production;
• institute state of the art medical monitoring programs to measure all hazardous materials production workers are exposed to (while protecting the privacy of the workers);
• use health surveillance that includes collection of data, analysis, and dissemination of information about injuries, illnesses, hazards and exposures in the electronics sector, with full access for workers to monitoring protocols and results, as well as medical records.
• eliminate or substitute the hazardous substances of concern (defined in the SAICM agreement)
• Promote procurement processes that include this objective
• Conduct research and development on safer chemicals substitutes, alternatives, and safer production processes
• Formulate, promote and implement health-based exposure limits for workers that provide equal protection in the workplace and the community
• Promote public and private partnerships including product stewardship approaches and extended producer responsibility for the environmentally sound management of hazardous substances in e-products both during production, use and at the end of life
• Endorse and support fair and just compensation for all workers harmed by exposure to hazardous chemicals while on the job;
• Endorse and support fair and just treatment of workers as defined by the ILO
• Identify opportunities to support the work of the Basel Convention and the Stockholm Convention in developing policies on the environmentally sound  management of e-waste and the control of transboundary movements of hazardous waste
• Establish voluntary approaches and use of economic instruments and other incentives, extended producer responsibility as appropriate and -e products take-back schemes building on existing national and international activities.
• Conduct pilot projects which lead to financially self sustaining initiatives on socially, economically, environmentally sound management of e waste without duplicating other activities including the Stockholm Convention and the Basel Convention programme

• In order to fully implement these recommendations as quickly as possible, we call on all stakeholders to endorse them and to work collaboratively to protect the health and well-being of  all workers and community residents affected by the hazards throughout the life cycle of electronics products, including but not limited to:

1. Electronics companies involved in the design, production, assembly and recycling of electronic products, including all sub-contractors throughout the global supply chain;
2. Companies that enable the use of electronic products (including mobile phone carriers) as well as companies that benefit from the use of such products, such as the health care industry, the automotive industry, financial institutions, media, the insurance industry etc.;
3. Governments and public bodies at all levels –local, state, regional, national and international; and
4. Civil society in all forms

• ANROEV Conference 2013
• Enough is Enough – Stop these Murders at Workplaces in Asia
• Rotterdam Convention in crisis, say civil society groups
• Workers Memorial Day
• Update from Partners
• A Trip to Remember

Read More

• Conference Report – Coming Soon
• ANROEV Statement on Fire Safety and Industrial Disasters -   ANROEV statement
• Background Note and Agenda Background Note and Agenda
• Organisational Updates
  • Korea Institute of Labor Safety and Health (KILSH)
  • SHARPS
  • Cividep
  • IOHSAD
  • LION
  • Hesperian Health Guides
  • The (U.S.) National Council for Occupational Safety and Health

• Conference Presentations

• Victims Photos Presentation
• Updates from Secretariat 1 Updates from Secretariat_2013
• OSH Status in Pakistan ANROEV OSH STATUS IN PAKISATN
• Presentation by Hazards Campaign and European Work Hazards Campaign HIlda Palmer Talk on OSH Campaigns    and the Hazards Camapign
• OSH in Canada – CAW OSH in Canada – CAW
• Occupational Lung Diseases summary presentation – Thomas Gassert Thomas Gassert Occupational Lung Diseases – Summary Presentation
• Samsung Leulemia Case – Occupational Diseases and Risk Assessment – Domyung Paek Samsung Leukemia Case_Occupational Disease and Risk System – Domyung
• Victims and the Justice System in South Africa – Dr Barry Kistanasamy Victims and the Justice System in South Africa
• Tribute to Simon Pickvance Tribute to Simon Pickvance
• Convention 121 recommendationsC121 50 years

Workshops

• Electronics
• Victims Organising
  • Victims Organising in China Victim organizing
• Legal Resources
• Social Media
• Chemical Poisoning
  • Ban Benzene Campaign
  • Chemical Charts by hesperian health guides
• Occupational Lung Diseases
  • Report on Asbestos Campaign for ANROEV 2013 – ABAN
  • JB lung diseases_JB
  • Yousuf Beg Youduf Beg
  • Thomas gassert Gassert ANROEV Occupational Lung Disease 08-May-2013
  • Barry South Africa

• Conference Papers
  • Electronics Sector in Vietnam – Centre for Development and Integration
  • National Policy on Electronics Sector in India and Status – Cividep
  • Journey of 20 years – PTRC  
  • Occupational Health for Women Workers in Informal Economy – SEWA
  • Breast cancer risk in relation to occupations with exposure to carcinogens and endocrine disruptors: A Canadian case-control study
  • National Workshop on OSH in Pakistan 
  • Defining Endocrine Disruptors: Are Women Workers In The Automotive Plastics Industry Particularly At Risk? 
  • Plastics Industry Workers and Breast Cancer Risk: Q & A 
  • Study spotlights high breast cancer risk for plastics workers 
  • Tazreen Fire the ground realities – ANROEV 
  • Occupational health Initiatives for Women Workers – SEWA  
  • Preventable Deaths – the tragedy of workplace fatalities – COSH 
  • Chemical exposure and plastics production: issues for women’s health | A Review of literature - National Network on Environments and Women’s Health  
  • Phillipines Electronics Landscape 

• Link to Photos

GENEVA—The first-ever joint Conference of the Parties (COP) to the Basel, Rotterdam, and Stockholm conventions on the production and trade of hazardous chemicals and waste wrapped up May 10 with officials admitting the results were less than they had hoped for.

The two-week meeting in Geneva secured the approval of a new global ban on the production and use of the brominated flame retardant hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD) under the Stockholm Convention on persistent organic pollutants (POPs) (88 DER A-14, 5/7/13).

However, a five-year exemption from the production ban was granted for use of HBCD in expanded polystyrene and extruded polystyrene in building insulation.

Delegates also agreed to new controls on international trade in four chemicals under the Rotterdam Convention on the prior informed consent (PIC) procedure for certain hazardous chemicals and pesticides.

The chemicals are azinphos methyl, an insecticide; perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), its salts, and precursors, an industrial chemical used in a variety of products as a grease, oil, and water repellent; pentabromodiphenyl ether (penta-BDE) commercial mixtures, used as a flame retardant; and octabromodipheny ether (octa-BDE) commercial mixtures, also used as a flame retardant.

Listings of Two Substances Rejected

However, proposals for the listing of two additional and more widely traded chemicals and substances were blocked by a handful of countries. Russia, India, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Ukraine, Vietnam, and Zimbabwe blocked a proposal to list chrysotile asbestos under the Rotterdam Convention.

Earlier attempts to add chrysotile asbestos to the list were also rejected at Rotterdam COP meetings in 2006, 2008, and 2011 (90 DER A-34, 5/9/13).

In addition, Guatemala and India blocked a decision to subject paraquat dichloride, an herbicide used on a variety of agricultural products, to PIC requirements.

Critics, including environmental groups, said the opposing countries were acting to protect their economic interests.

Under the Rotterdam Convention, a party that plans to export a chemical that is listed in Annex III of the convention and is banned or severely restricted for use within its territory must inform the importing party that such export will take place, before the first shipment and annually thereafter.

All the chemicals and substances proposed for listing were previously approved by scientific experts on the convention’s Chemicals Review Committee (CRC) for listing in Annex III.

‘South-South’ Trade Noted

Jim Willis, executive secretary of the joint chemicals conventions secretariat, said it was notable that developing rather than industrialized countries blocked the listing of chrysotile asbestos and paraquat dichloride.

“Some challenges remain in Rotterdam in listing chemicals with considerable economic or perceived economic value,” he admitted. “These are interesting challenges, because in both cases the countries that have reservations about adding the chemicals are developing countries.”

“What we have witnessed in the past two decades is a transition from the notion that the problems have been [trade] going from wealthy to poorer countries to trade that is almost equally south-south, both in chemicals and in waste,” he added.

Franz Perrez, president of the joint COP and head of the Swiss delegation to the meeting, expressed frustration with the outcome on paraquat dichloride.

One of the biggest producers of the herbicide is the Swiss chemical firm Syngenta, which produces paraquat dichloride under the trade name Gramoxone™ Super. Switzerland bans the use of the chemical at home.

“We’re very disappointed,” Perrez declared. “We have strongly supported the listing of paraquat and are deeply committed to doing everything to make it listed next time.”

Countries’ Arguments Said Out of Bounds

Perrez said a particular concern was that the reasons given for opposing the listing were “not within the philosophy of the convention,” which is to help countries having problems managing the import and use of hazardous chemicals and pesticides on their territory.

“By starting to use arguments that are totally outside of that philosophy, then we think that’s a problem for the functioning of the convention itself,” he declared.

Willis insisted that it would be wrong to describe the joint COP meeting as a disappointment overall because two of the six proposed listings under Rotterdam were blocked.

“There were some outcomes that people would have like to see that didn’t happen,” he said. “And there may be a tendency to magnify that because there were three conventions meeting this week.

“It shouldn’t take away from the great successes that the Rotterdam Convention has had. Adding this group of four chemicals is a particular success because they are known to be quite bad chemicals.”

Substances Stay on Agenda

Willis added that “one marvelous thing about the Rotterdam Convention” is that once a substance is recommended by the CRC for listing, it stays on the COP agenda until there is a decision.

“A chemical that is not listed this time will be on the agenda at the next meeting, and if it’s not added there, it’s on the agenda for the subsequent meeting,” he said.

Achim Steiner, executive director of the U.N. Environment Program, said even though a proposed substance might not be approved by the COP, the fact that it will remain on the COP agenda “signals ultimately that the substance will in due course disappear.”

“What is sometimes unfortunate is that countries feel compelled, sometimes for very practical reasons, to oppose simply to enable themselves to have more time to deal with very particular national circumstances,” Steiner said. “There are many countries that have invoked this tactic over time, and therefore the convention may need more time to reach a consensus across all member states.

“It’s very easy to say we’ve failed,” the UNEP chief added. “But the fact of the matter is that asbestos essentially has no future. … Do you really believe that after everything that has been discussed here [industry] will invest in that material in the future? No, and in that sense the convention has a direct and indirect value in signaling what are the substances that are not likely to be in the global marketplace in the near or middle term.”

Activists Criticize Holdouts

Activist groups in attendance criticized the blocking of the chrysotile asbestos and paraquat dichloride listings.

Kathleen Ruff, founder of the Ottawa-based RightonCanada and a campaigner against the asbestos trade, said groups were “very disturbed that this conference has so greatly damaged the credibility of he Rotterdam Convention.”

“We have seen abuse of the convention by these seven countries who have raised arguments that are extraneous and irrelevant to the convention,” Ruff declared. “They are displaying contempt for the right of other countries to protect their borders and populations.”

Noting that Russia and Zimbabwe were participating in the COP for the first time as parties, Ruff said, “It’s very clear they are concerned about their commercial interests and their asbestos industry. … It appears clear to us they have ratified the convention in order to wreck it.”

Economic Considerations at Work

Russia is by far the largest exporter of chrysotile asbestos, accounting for three-quarters of the 1 million tons exported in 2011. Brazil, the world’s second largest exporter, declined to take a position at the meeting.

Zimbabwe announced in advance of the COP meeting that it would oppose the listing of chrysotile asbestos. The government is currently looking for investors to reopen the country’s chrysotile asbestos mines.

“There are clear economic considerations that do sometimes factor into situations like this, particularly when economic circumstances are difficult, which they are now for many countries,” Willis noted.

“It’s unfortunate,” he added, “but there are well over 40 chemicals listed on the Rotterdam Convention, we added another 10 percent this week, and so this is an indication [that] for all but a few countries there is keen interest in continuing to strengthen the convention.”

Barry Castleman, an environmental consultant and an observer at the meetings, said India’s position on chrysotile asbestos was driven strictly by commercial interests.

“India has a very powerful asbestos industry, and the use of asbestos is going up very rapidly,” Castleman said, noting that India is second only to China in domestic asbestos consumption. “In order to maintain its profitability, the industry has to avoid the cost of prevention and compensation [to workers]. They’ve done it very well in India.

“There are members of Parliament in India who have financial interests in the asbestos industry, and there are asbestos companies that have media interests in India,” he added. “This is why India has played a leading role at the COP in blocking the listing not only of asbestos but also paraquat at this conference.”

Indian Negotiator Defends Position

Shashi Shekhar, secretary to the Indian Ministry of Environment and Forests and head of the Indian delegation to the COP meeting, said India’s objections to both asbestos and paraquat were based on scientific as well as commercial grounds.

“We’ve carried out our own study with the National Institute of Professional Health and they have not found anything serious among the workers that are engaged in the manufacture of asbestos sheet,” he said. “We have not found any serious health concerns.”

Shekhar said asbestos is used in only two limited sectors in India—for the manufacture of asbestos sheet used as a roofing material in low-income housing, and in water piping. “In both cases detailed studies have been carried out and nothing has been found which raised concerns for human health or the environment.”

The asbestos industry “is a billion-dollar industry in our country, with more than 20,000 workers,” he added. “Without having adequate information [to justify action], we thought it was not an appropriate time to commit to a ban. We need to do more studies and then we’ll make a call on that.”

Paraquat Recommendation Questioned

In regards to paraquat dichloride, Shekhar said India had problems accepting international restrictions for various reasons.

First, the proposed recommendation for the listing covered specific liquid formulations (emulsifiable concentrate and soluble concentrate) containing paraquat dichloride at or above 276 grams per liter, corresponding to paraquat ion at or above 200 grams per liter. “We do not know on what basis this [recommendation] has come,” he said.

In addition, Shekhar said the CRC issued its recommendation on paraquat dichloride “based on one country’s notification [from Burkina Faso] and without going into a detailed investigation.

“You shouldn’t recommend anything that will have implications all over the world based on the experience of one country, and the experience of that country is, to my knowledge, not well investigated. That’s why we said it doesn’t meet the listing criteria laid out in the rules.”

Shekhar said India currently imports paraquat dichloride at a concentration below 276 grams per liter and then further dilutes it before it is used as a herbicide. While putting the herbicide on the Rotterdam PIC list would not prohibit its trade, he argued, it would severely curb it, to the detriment of the country’s poor farmers who depend on the herbicide to protect their crops.

“The moment it is listed you have to go through major bureaucratic hurdles to ship,” Shekhar said. “And then the costs go up. We cannot afford to increase input costs. Our farmers are already hard-pressed, and we can’t put them through further distress.”

Russian Group Cites Potential Job Loss

The head of a Russian-based labor group called the International Trade Union Movement for Chrysotile also backed the rejection of the chrysotile asbestos PIC listing on economic grounds.

“Fifty thousand workers will lose their jobs in Russia” if chrysotile asbestos is banned, declared Andrey Kholzakov, president of the group and a representative from the Russian Construction and Building Materials Industry Workers’ Union.

Kholzakov said there was still no scientific consensus on the danger of chrysotile asbestos to human health and that claims of 100,000 deaths each year from asbestos contamination were “exaggerated.”

According to the World Health Organization, more than 107,000 people die each year from asbestos related lung cancer, mesothelioma, and asbestosis resulting from occupational exposure.

Denial of justice announced by the way of press articles

Press release, 15 May, 2013

According the journal « le Canard enchaîné », the investigation chamber of the Appeal Court of Paris should take a shocking decision, on the next 17May, 2013, reversing the indictment of civil servants and other members of the Asbestos Permanent Committee, in the criminal asbestos trial in France.

Failure of secrecy is a serious disruption of the impartiality of judges in making a decision. But the most serious is the decision itself.  The Court would have not identify any “link” between the deaths of tens of thousands of victims, for most workers, and the activity of the Asbestos Permanent Committee in which the Ministry of Labour was represented ex officio.  However, this activity has been to prevent regulations on asbestos in France and Europe, from the early 1980s to the emergence of the social movement of asbestos victims and the ban in 1996.

Who will anyone believe that “senior officials have no regulatory power”? The state is not powerless when it has to protect the wealth of powerful people. Would it be without any capacity of   action concerning the health and lives of workers, whose work has made the fortune of asbestos producers?

This decision, if confirmed, arouses indignation and revolt of asbestos victims and all those who fight at their side. It strengthens their determination to continue the struggle for justice. With their lawyers, Ban Asbestos France and the association Henri Pézerat will continue the action for the recognition by the criminal courts, of the reality of the asbestos disaster and its consequences as an industrial crime.

Read Press Release French English

ANROEV being a victims’ network, spread in more than 14 Asian countries, was bonded together by two similar devastating fires in Thailand and China two decades back. Thus ANROEV fully understands the pain and agony that the victims and their families are facing and would like to express deep solidarity with the affected workers and their families. It is very unfortunate – as we are observing the 20th anniversary of the Kader fire, which stood as the worst industrial fire for about 19 years, till the recent industrial disasters in Karachi and Dhaka. They have opened the old wounds again and this time more painful. History keeps on repeating in gruesome way.

ANROEV members also express their deep outrage at the colossal loss of life, which is now unprecedented by any scale. Fire and structural safety of the buildings is the basic right that workers in Asia rightfully deserve. Providing safe fire passage is well known for more than a century since the ‘Triangle Fire’ of New York in 1911 and if it is not provided or remains blocked any deaths henceforth should amount to ‘murder’ and not just an accident

Events of the last 8 months have clearly demonstrated a complete failure of the CSR and hollowness of the ‘self-regulatory’ standards and industry audits that manufactures and brands have been adopting in collusion with states. It has led to the weakening of the state regulatory mechanisms, which otherwise could have allowed inspections of these facilities by local authorities and thus disasters could have been prevented. It has also shown the failure of both for profit and nonprofit social auditing, that seems to be detached from the realities at ground.

Ironically, majority of the post-disaster proposals include the same failed and discredited CSR approach and corporate led top down proposals that tends to privatize what should be ‘state’ function like setting up of strong labour laws, OSH regulations including building codes and enforcing them.

At this point we also need to understand the underlying causes that include:

• The Economic model of neo-liberal development that systematically dismantles the local institutions of regulation and liberates brands and businesses both local and multinational to operate not only without accountability but with unprecedented impunity.
• Blood ‘quest’ for profits by the major clothing brands and retailers come at the cost of workers’ life and health. The price of clothes does not reflect the real cost of the production, damage to environment and health of workers and communities. These costs are borne by the workers, their families and the communities, sometimes for many generations.
• Lack of governments in the region to fulfill the responsibility to protect their citizens by failing to enforce present laws and criminally prosecuting the businesses who kill workers at workplaces.
• Anti-union practices and lack of freedom of association that have kept the workplaces virtually union free. With limited bargaining power workers find it difficult to change the condition at work
• Levels of poverty among the workers that forces them to work in dangerous environment so that they can feed their families.

The network therefore demands:

1. Immediate fair compensation to all the victims and their families and proper long term rehabilitation for all the affected workers and their families.
2. Free and independent enquiry into root causes of the accident, which should lead to long term structural changes that includes building/strengthening of the local democratic institutions, making them accountable to the workers and people and allows for the progressive taxing of the industry that fund these institutions.
3. Criminal prosecution of all the responsible parties – including the owner, buyers for their negligence and auditors that ‘certified’ the premises as safe.

Henceforth

1. Companies should be obliged to comply with national and international health and safety measures, whichever is a higher standard, in a serious manner through which should be monitored locally by strengthening the local independent inspections
2. Union and workers participation at all levels in health and safety policies and decisions has to be recognized as indispensable component in ensuring safe and healthy workplaces. Concrete steps should be taken to ensure freedom of association.
3. Active formation and recognition of victims’ organizations as legitimate representatives of the injured and dead workers

Bangkok, Thailand (May 10, 2013)-As another garment factory burned in Dhaka and the death toll topped 1000 following the April 24 Rana Plaza garment factory collapse in Bangladesh, Asian occupational victims’ rights groups today commemorated the anniversary of the tragic Kader toy factory fire that claimed the lives of 188 Thai workers 20 years ago.

Muhammad Mominur Rahman, a survivor of the November 2012 Tazreen factory fire in Bangladesh that killed 112 workers, said at the press conference, “Less than six months ago I was forced to jump three stories to escape a fire, which engulfed the coworkers around me. We were locked inside the factory. No one should have to face such dangerous and deadly conditions to go to work to support their families. These senseless tragedies must end.”

“Two decades after the Kader industrial disaster in Thailand that robbed so many young people of their lives, it is criminal that workers’ bodies are still being pulled out of the ruins of factories in Asia,” said Chalee Loysung, chairperson of Thai Labour Solidarity Committee. “Governments and employers must be held accountable and workers must be guaranteed the right to freedom of association and to collectively bargain to ensure a safe workplace.”

Only weeks before the September 2012 factory fire that killed nearly 300 workers in Karachi, Pakistan, Social Accountability International, a nonprofit auditing firm, gave the factory a health and safety certification. “Corporate social responsibility driven initiatives and self-regulatory mechanisms have failed time and time again to protect workers,” said Sanjiv Pandita, executive director of the Asia Monitor Resource Centre (AMRC). “Government institutions must be strengthened to protect workers, guilty employers must be prosecuted, and occupational victims must be compensated.”

At the press conference, which was held at the Foreign Correspondents’ Club in Bangkok, AMRC also released a new legal resource handbook covering ten Asian countries for practitioners working to obtain compensation and justice for sick and injured workers in collaboration with members of the ANROEV network.

“There is a systemic attack on the national institutions that are supposed to be enforcing the laws” explained Noel Colina, director of the Institute for Occupational Health and Safety Development in Manila. “We have very weak regulatory institutions throughout Asia and we have to stop the attack on workers. That’s why we have produced the legal handbook to give workers and their advocates an additional tool to remedy the situation.”

About ANROEV: The Asian Network for the Rights of Occupational and Environmental Victims (ANROEV) is a coalition of victims’ groups, trade unions and other labor groups committed to the rights of victims and health and safety at the workplace. The 1993 industrial disasters of Kader and Zhili, which killed more than 250 workers in Thailand and China, led to a campaign by the labor and victims groups in Asia towards better health and safety rights of the workers and the victims.

Contact: Omana George, Asia Monitor Resource Centre—0860755645 or 0920464833 (English)
Ardcha Premruedeeleert, Solidarity Center–0867132924 (Thai)

###

Civil society groups attending the Rotterdam Convention conference in Geneva are expressing grave alarm that the Convention has been hijacked by the asbestos industry, which is determined to prevent the environmental and health protections of the Convention from being implemented.

For the fourth time, a handful of countries allied to the asbestos industry have refused to allow chrysotile asbestos to be added to the Convention’s list of hazardous substances, even though the Convention’s expert scientific committee has repeatedly recommended that it be listed and even though it has been recognized that the listing of chrysotile asbestos meets all the criteria of the Convention. The committee’s conclusions are endorsed by all leading medical organisations and by the World Health Organisation.

“It is outrageous that seven countries – Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Ukraine, Zimbabwe, India and Vietnam – are turning the Rotterdam Convention into a Convention that protects profits of the asbestos industry, instead of protecting human health and the environment,” said Kathleen Ruff, co-coordinator of the Rotterdam Convention Alliance.

“The Convention requires that countries practice responsible trade by obtaining prior informed consent before they export hazardous substances to another country,” said Laurie Kazan-Allen, coordinator of IBAS, UK. “But these seven countries are determined to practice irresponsible trade and to hide the hazards of chrysotile asbestos.”

Fernanda Giannasi, a labour inspector in Brazil, reports that, in her job, she daily sees products containing chrysotile asbestos entering her country without labels, and tells of the great many victims who develop cancers from asbestos exposure in her country. “Since these countries refuse to follow responsible trade information practices, it will force other countries to resort to other measures, such as a full ban on asbestos,” said Giannasi.

“Russia and Zimbabwe recently ratified the Convention and attended the Rotterdam Convention conference of the parties for the first time,” said Sugio Furuya of the Asia Ban Asbestos Network. “It seems that they ratified the Convention with the sole purpose of wrecking it in order to protect the profits of their national asbestos industry.This is shameful, cynical conduct on their part. They are ruthlessly destroying the Convention to achieve their aim.”

“If the Convention is not going to be implemented and become empty words on paper, then what is the point of having the Convention?” asked Emmanuel Odjam-Akumatey of Ecological Restorations, Ghana. “The credibility of the Convention, and all 152 countries who have ratified the Convention is a at stake.”

“These seven countries, allied to the asbestos industry, are demonstrating contempt for the right of countries to prior informed consent, which is the whole purpose of the Convention,” said Alessandro Pugno of the Association of Asbestos Victims Families, Casale, Italy. That is why we have once against brought one hundred people, representing asbestos victims organisations, in front of the UN headquarters in Geneva and presented to the president of the conference their letter, calling for chrysotile asbestos to be listed.

“As well as civil society, the vast majority of parties to the Rotterdam Convention are dismayed and supported the statement by Australia yesterday stating that the cost of inaction will be huge,” said Elina Doszhanova of Social-Eco Fund NGO from Kazakhstan. “Although we are a major exporting country of chrysotile asbestos, there is no in-depth research and understanding of the current and future health and environmental costs of inaction.”

“Chrysotile asbestos is widely used in Kyrgyzstan, but our citizens are not all informed; we call on our governments to apply the precautionary principle, to protect public health,” says Dr Vladimir Korotenko, BIOM Kyrgyzstan.

“This small group of countries tries to use as an excuse, that listing would cause extra costs. They have been repeatedly told that this is not a criterion of the Convention. Furthermore, this argument is nonsense and omits the enormous economic costs caused by chrysotile asbestos, which is already up in the hundreds of billions of dollars. While industry takes the profits, the costs are put on the shoulders of the public taxpayer. The World Bank recognized this fact and therefore recommended against use of chrysotile asbestos,” said Alexandra Caterbow, senior chemical expert at WECF International.

Last year, an Italian court sentenced two asbestos executives to 16 years in jail for criminally suppressing information about the hazards of asbestos, resulting in up to 3000 deaths, including citizens living near their asbestos-cement factories.

“By not listing chrysotile asbestos, the Convention is enabling the industry to carry on the same criminal cover-up of the hazards of chrysotile asbestos, which will result in hundreds of thousands more tragic deaths, which could and should be prevented,” said Dr. Barry Castleman, former consultant on asbestos to the World Bank. “This is a crime against humanity and the whole world should be scandalized.”

Fernanda Giannasi, said the handful of asbestos countries achieved a small delay, but by doing so they further isolated themselves from the world community and incensed the majority of parties to the convention who insist on obtaining their right to know, as soon as possible. Civil society and victims organisations are determined to continue their struggle to protect all people from deadly hazards of chrysotile asbestos.

Click here to read the press release