Caso individual (CAS) - Discusión: 2006, Publicación: 95ª reunión CIT (2006)

Convenio sobre el asbesto, 1986 (núm. 162) - Croacia (Ratificación : 1991)

The Government communicated the following written information.

The Republic of Croatia has opted for an integrated solution of the asbestos problem in Croatia by the end of 2006. For this purpose, in January 2006, a coordination body was set up among the three ministries competent to deal with this problem: the Ministry of the Economy, Labour and Entrepreneurship; the Ministry of Health and Welfare; and the Ministry of Environmental Protection, Physical Planning and Construction.

With reference to point 3 of the observation: the coordination body of the three ministries competent for asbestos-related issues in the Republic of Croatia that met in January 2006 adopted the following conclusions. First, the Ministry of Health and Welfare (in collaboration with the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of the Economy, Labour and Entrepreneurship) will draw up a Draft Bill on Meeting the Claims of Workers Occupationally Exposed to Asbestos. Second, the Ministry of the Economy, Labour and Entrepreneurship (in collaboration with the Ministry of Health and Welfare and the Croatian Health Insurance Institute) will draw up a Draft Bill on Amendments to the List of Occupational Diseases Law. Third, the Ministry of the Economy, Labour and Entrepreneurship will send the Draft Bill on special conditions for acquiring entitlements from retirement insurance for workers occupationally exposed to asbestos to the legislature. The Ministry of the Economy, Labour and Entrepreneurship will propose appropriate measures to encourage the introduction of new technologies for asbestos-free production after receiving and assessing the investment project of the transition to asbestos-free production. Fourth, the Ministry of Environmental Protection, Physical Planning and Construction will draw up a recovery programme for repairing the environmental damage to the factory compound of Salonit d.d. and the Mravinacka kava dump site, and the source of financing involved. The timescale of the end of 2006 was envisaged for the implementation of the said conclusions, by which time all the tasks are supposed to be completely executed. Some of the tasks stated have already been carried out, and some of the agreed on draft laws have been referred to the legislature. The Government has given a detailed description of these draft laws.

In the Ministry of Health and Welfare in 2003 activities started with respect to issues of the diagnosis, treatment and compensation claims of people suffering from ill health caused by asbestos. At that time, a procedure was started for the laying down of distinctive criteria for the establishment of occupational diseases caused by asbestos (asbestosis of the pulmonary parenchyma), dynamics of preventive medical examinations for all employed persons who have been occupationally exposed to asbestos (people who were employed earlier, who have retired et al.) along with an estimate of the resources necessary for such purposes. Since the existing legal regulations did not, in a satisfactory manner, handle the problems of persons suffering from exposure to asbestos, in March 2006 two expert commissions were set up in the Ministry of Health and Welfare for the handling of these issues: first, an Expert Commission for the drafting of an Injury at Work and Occupational Ill Health Insurance Law, and draft Regulations concerning Preventive Diagnosis, Treatment and Surveillance of Persons Suffering from Asbestosis; and secondly, an Expert Commission for the drafting of a Meeting regarding the Claims of Employees Occupationally Exposed to Asbestos Law.

Pursuant to the provisions of the Toxins Law (Official Gazette, Nos. 27/99, 37/99 and 55/99), the Ministry of Health and Welfare has adopted a list of toxic substances the production, marketing and use of which are prohibited (Official Gazette, Nos. 29/05 and 34/05), according to which, from 1 January 2006, a ban on the production, marketing and use of prescribed asbestos fibres has been in force. However, in line with article 53 of the Chemicals Law (Official Gazette, No. 150/05) the Ministry of Health and Welfare, with the consent of the Ministry of the Economy, Labour and Entrepreneurship on 14 February 2006 adopted a List of Hazardous Chemicals, the Marketing of which is Banned or Restricted.

In line with this List of Hazardous Chemicals with reference to the kinds of asbestos fibre known as crocidolite, amosite, anthrophyllite, actinolite and tremolite, these fibres are not allowed to be marketed or used, and neither are any products that contain any of these fibres. With respect to chrysotile, there is a total ban on the sale or the use of it or of products containing chrysotile, but concomitantly with certain exceptions. From the ban, then, exceptions are made for membranes for existing electrolysis apparatus while it can be used or while it can be serviced, or until an appropriate material without any asbestos fibre contents can be found. The use of products that contain asbestos fibres quoted on the List of Hazardous Chemicals that were incorporated into products before the List of Toxic Substances came into force can be continued until they become waste or until their service life has elapsed. Independently of the regulations that regulate the classification, packaging or labelling of hazardous substances and products, they must, when being marketed or used, be additionally furnished with asbestos signs according to the regulations concerning the labelling of hazardous chemicals.

With reference to points 2, 7, 8 of the observation: labour inspectors regularly carry out inspections in the Salonit d.d Vranjic plant, which produces construction materials, one of the additives during manufacturing being asbestos. The last inspection was carried out during 15-17 May 2006 and the State Inspectorate reported that in Salonit d.d Vranjic this manufacturing line had been halted because it was impossible to market the product, and only two employees were found carrying out works with special conditions of work - working and finishing asbestos-cement pipes. From an inspection of the hazard assessment for the jobs that are undertaken in Salonit d.d in bankruptcy it was found out that jobs with special conditions of work are carried out in a total of 45 positions on which 143 employees are working (out of the current labour force of 179). Of these 143 employees, 84 carry out jobs with special conditions of work described by the Government.

With respect to point 4 of the observation: in the inspectorial control carried out in March 2006 it was determined that the employer regularly carried out inspections of the working environment in line with provisions of the article of the Protection at Work Law (Official Gazette, Nos. 59/96, 94/96, 114/03 and 100/04) and the provisions of the regulations concerning the testing of the working environment, machines and plant with increased hazards (Official Gazette, Nos. 114/02 and 126/03). The tests are carried out by an authorized firm that possesses a current authorization of the minister competent for labour matters. In the last test of the working environment that was carried out in July 2004 by the authorized firm ZAST d.o.o of Split, it was determined that all the parameters of the working environment were within permitted values including the concentration of asbestos fibres in the air, and appropriate certificates thereto were issued. A list of measured concentration of asbestos dust at all production locations is included.

With reference to points 5 and 9: a labour inspector with responsibility for protection at work determined at the employer that the workers are provided with personal protective equipment laid down by the hazard assessment, that they have two lockers, one for working and one for ordinary clothing, they have shower cabinets and wash basins and that the workers are forbidden to go out of the factory compound in their working clothes or to come in their working clothes to work. The provisions of the Regulations concerning protection at work in the processing of non-metal raw materials (Official Gazette No. 10/986) and the Regulations concerning personal protective equipment at work and personal protective equipment (Official Gazette No. 35/69) state that an employer has to provide clothing lockers for working and for ordinary clothing, shower cabinets, the laundry of the working clothing, and the kind of personal protective equipment according to the dangers in the place of work. The penal provisions of the Protection at Work Law allow for fines to be imposed on legal entities or corporations in a range from 10,000 to 90,000 kuna, and for a responsible person in a legal entity in a range from 3,000 to 10,000 kuna. A labour inspector with responsibility for protection at work can also on the spot fine workers 100 kuna and his or her immediate supervisor 500 kuna in cases when a worker is not wearing the regulation personal protective equipment, when the worker is smoking in premises where smoking is not allowed, and other cases.

With reference to point 6: after the first unsuccessful experience, the Ministry once again announced a public tender for the drawing up of a rehabilitation programme for Mravinacka kava and the Salonit d.d. Vranjic factory compound, and this was published in the Official Gazette of 09/06, 27 February, 2006. The deadline defined for the drawing up of the rehabilitation programme is 20 September, 2006. The Ministry will propose a solution for the funding of the rehabilitation programme. In the meantime, via environmental inspection procedures, the Ministry several times carried out inspections of the Salonit d.d. factory. In the performance of the inspectorial supervision, the measure of covering up the asbestos-cement sludge temporarily deposited in the factory compound was ordered, as measure for temporary rehabilitation. Environmental protection inspectors from the Ministry of Environmental Protection, Physical, Planning and Construction have carried out regular controls of Salonit d.d. factory since 2000. The asbestos waste from the manufacturing process in the Salonit d.d. factory that was previously deposited in an abandoned cave/mine where raw materials for Dalmacijacement had been extracted has not been deposited there, as a result of a ban on the part of the inspectors, since 1 July, 2003. The waste sludge that was created during the process of the production of asbestos building materials and structures, pursuant to orders of the inspectors, was moved from the open-air part of the factory compound into a closed factory shed where it is still waiting final disposition. Asbestos fibres that are in the sludge are stabilized (in solid state) and there are no emissions of particles from the waste sludge in the atmosphere. The rest of the waste (rejects) from the constructional material that contains asbestos, which is also inert and in a solid state, is stored in the factory compound belonging to Salonit d.d. The same Rehabilitation Programme will define the manners and procedures for looking after the remaining asbestos-containing waste from the factory compound of the firm Salonit d.d. Vrajnic.

With reference to point 10: Salonit d.d. Vranjic submitted on 21 March 2005 an application for the import of 2,500 tons of asbestos, the representatives of the firm stating that they were aware that asbestos was on the List of Forbidden Substances, the ban on the use of which came into force on 1 January, 2005, and hence the ban on their product line, but they stated that the sought quantity would be sufficient and it would be used up in the production of asbestos cement products. As we reported above, in line with the most recent inspection carried out at the employer, performed between 15 and 17 May 2006 by the State Inspectorate in the company Salonit d.d. Vranjic, production had been halted because of the impossibility of selling the product on the market. In addition, before the Committee, a Government representative indicated that during the most recent labour inspection a number of photos had been taken, which were available on CD-ROM. His Government was aware that insufficient information and explanations had been provided in earlier reports and that much could have been done earlier. Nevertheless, quite a lot had been done in relation to the problem of asbestos since 1990, including the adoption of new regulations and their implementation. The occupational safety and health legislation in his country was in harmony with Convention No. 155 and the European Union Framework Directive and took into account technical progress and scientific knowledge. He recalled that when the Ordinance on occupational exposure levels had entered into force in 1993, the permitted occupational exposure level to asbestos had been drastically reduced from 175 particles per cubic metre to a mere two particles per cubic metre. His Government was aware that its first priority in the field of occupational safety and health had to be action in relation to asbestos and he believed that his country had started to resolve the problem in an adequate and effective manner. His Government was also fully aware that resolving the problem would require long-term action, not only in relation to the workers in Salonit who were exposed to asbestos, but also bearing in mind future problems related to the demolition of buildings and the replacement of materials containing asbestos. He expressed his willingness to provide any further information that might be needed and to cooperate with all bodies and institutions that could help in resolving the very serious problem of asbestos.

Commenting on the information provided in document D.11, the speaker said that the relevant authorities had engaged in consultations with experts from other countries and Croatia had tried to follow the same approach as that adopted in neighbouring countries. While the occupational safety and health legislation in Croatia provided a good basis for technical action to address the problem of asbestos, he acknowledged that in certain aspects it was not completely in harmony with the Convention. Nevertheless, it was not true to say that there were no regulations respecting asbestos in the country. He added that since 1990 much had been done to improve working conditions, including those relating to asbestos. For example, it was no longer permitted to empty bags under pressure and asbestos dust was not permitted in the environment. Appropriate filters and ventilation systems had to be installed. There was rigorous health surveillance and specific regulations concerning work involving asbestos, including a prohibition on such work being carried out by persons under 18 years of age and those suffering from certain medical diseases. Provision had also been made for early retirement for workers suffering from certain health problems. He added that the help of ILO experts would be welcome in endeavouring to overcome this very serious problem.

The Employer members thanked the Government for the information provided and stated that Convention No. 162 was a very comprehensive technical convention that dealt with an issue which was particularly important for occupational safety and health. The case had already been discussed in 2003 in the Conference Committee. As of 1998, the Salonit factory mentioned in the observation of the Committee of Experts had changed from a public to a private enterprise and represented only 2 to 3 per cent of national industry. Its name should not therefore be mentioned in the observation. In the discussion in 2003, the Government had stated that it was aware of the seriousness of the situation and its responsibility in the matter, and undertook to take a series of steps, including bringing the national legislation into conformity with the Convention through: the adoption of new legislation respecting the treatment of waste and the prohibition of the production and commercialization of products containing asbestos; the provision of adequate incentives for the replacement of asbestos with other products; and the provision of funds for the restructuring of production in the sectors concerned. The reports in 2004, 2005 and 2006 had contained no information on any laws or regulations to give effect to the Convention. Little information had been provided on the allegations made by the workers exposed to asbestos. There was no information on the inspections carried out or on the shortcomings regarding personal protective equipment or special protective clothing for such workers. Nor was there any information on possible exposure to airborne asbestos during waste disposal processes, or on measures to provide education and written information to workers on the health risks of asbestos exposure. Furthermore, it was not known whether the Bill mentioned by the Government had undergone a due process of consultation with the most representative employers' and workers' organizations.

They noted that, although the Government representative had provided additional information in his statement, he had not provided any updated information on the situation with regard to the Bill. Although he had provided further details on the inspections carried out and the protective equipment and clothing, the information concerning the treatment of waste and available treatment methods was insufficient. Before formulating their conclusions, the Employer members wished to know whether the Government was in a position to provide more information on the following points: the current situation of the future Act respecting the production and commercialization of products containing asbestos; the extent of the consultations carried out on the Bill; the adequacy of the inspection methods to measure the presence of asbestos; and the measures envisaged to treat waste containing asbestos in the above enterprise.

The Worker members thanked the Government representative for the oral and written information provided and recalled that the Conference Committee had discussed the case in 2003. They emphasized that asbestos was an extremely dangerous product. Several health organizations, including the WHO, had studied and described its harmful effects. Persons affected by asbestos experienced several types of symptoms and died gradually of suffocation. It was a horrible, slow and painful death. Exposure to asbestos also caused other diseases, including lung cancer. At the 2003 Conference, the Government had requested ILO technical assistance to help solve the problems in the implementation and application of the Convention. Between 2003 and 2006, the Office had offered its technical assistance on three occasions, but the Government had never accepted these offers. Moreover, at the request of the Croatian trade unions, an ILO specialist in occupational safety and health had carried out a study on the situation in the country and made a number of recommendations. In its latest observation, the Committee of Experts mentioned several problems which persisted in the country. With regard to the measures taken to prevent and monitor health risks due to occupational exposure to asbestos and to protect workers against such risks, it had noted that the situation in the Salonit factory had not improved, but indeed had deteriorated. It had also expressed deep concern at the fact that the conditions in the Salonit factory were not only putting the lives of workers at risk, but also those of the population living nearby. The Committee of Experts had noted that labour inspections were not effective and that inspectors did not have the appropriate technical equipment to measure asbestos levels in the workplace. Furthermore, the Government had not provided any detailed information on the manner in which inspections were carried out, their frequency, quality and the equipment used by the inspectors to measure asbestos levels in the Salonit factory.

With regard to the disposal of waste containing asbestos, the Committee of Experts had noted that, despite the decision in July 2004 by inspectors requiring the employer to temporarily cover stored asbestos with a waterproof tarpaulin, and contrary to the information provided by the Government, waste containing asbestos was still stored in the open air on the Salonit factory premises. Finally, the Committee of Experts had noted that the competent authorities had not made sufficient efforts to identify all persons, including current workers, former workers and people living in the neighbourhood of the factory, who might have come into contact with asbestos and risked contracting an asbestos-related disease. The oral and written information provided by the Government representative described a certain degree of progress; progress, however, which could not be verified by our Committee and with regard to which the Worker members, based on information from the Croatian trade unions, had serious doubts. The Government had neglected social dialogue regarding this matter. Indeed, the social partners had not been consulted regarding the measures described by the Government. Moreover, according to the Government, asbestos production had been halted because it was impossible to sell it on the market. This raised a question: would asbestos be produced again if demand increased? Would it not be more responsible and reasonable to halt production due to the obvious health risks for workers and the neighbourhood, and the violation of Convention No. 162? It was a very serious problem which required an immediate solution. The Worker members indicated that close dialogue with the social partners had to be established and that legislative measures needed to be taken to counter the harmful effects of asbestos, not only for the workers still employed in the factory, but for the future, as the harmful effects of asbestos exposure only emerged after several years.

The Worker member of Croatia stated that the Articles of the Convention were currently being breached, even though its observance was obligatory because it had been incorporated into the Croatian legal system. Nevertheless, the necessary laws and regulations had not yet been adopted, as noted in paragraph 3 of the observation of the Committee of Experts. He emphasized that the trade unions in Croatia had been advocating an absolute ban on the use of asbestos as a raw material and the development of an overall solution for the victims, including: severance payments for workers still working at Salonit-Vranjic, the only factory that was still using asbestos; the payment of compensation to workers who suffered from asbestos-related diseases, or to their families if the worker had deceased; medical examinations for all those confirmed to have been exposed to asbestos every three years for the next 40 years; more favourable retirement entitlements for those who had been exposed to asbestos; and compensation for damages for inhabitants suffering from asbestos-related diseases. Furthermore, there needed to be an overall consolidation and disposal of asbestos waste dumps including management for all other cases of contact with asbestos in the future.

Salonit-Vranjic was the only factory in Croatia still using asbestos and the terrible estimate was that there were 1,700 tonnes of asbestos waste in its premises and workers there were being poisoned everyday. Moreover, the factory only accounted for 10 per cent of the entire asbestos problem in Croatia, and there was also asbestos in other factories, shipyards and construction companies that had used asbestos. There was no systematic register of diseased persons, so it could only be estimated that, in Croatia, there were approximately 45,000 people who had been temporarily or permanently exposed to asbestos since 1960. As of 1990, some 450 workers had been reported as suffering from asbestos-related diseases, of whom around 200 had died. At least an additional 1,000 to 1,500 of today's workers were estimated to be suffering from diseases caused by asbestos. The emergence of symptoms could be deferred for up to ten years following exposure, making the responsibility of the State as the previous owner of Salonit-Vranjic greater than it seemed. He affirmed that several provisions of the Convention and, particularly, Articles 12, 14, 18, 19, 21 and 22 were being violated. The national legislation did not contain laws and regulations to apply the Convention. There was a draft law to ban the production and sale of asbestos products and provide for means for the restructuring of asbestos production into asbestos-free production, but this draft legislation had never come into force. The list of toxic substances, the production, marketing and use of which were prohibited, effective as from 1 January 2006, included asbestos in its first version, but the reference to asbestos had been removed from the revised version. The Government had promised to make the majority of the relevant draft legislation available for public debate by 1 June 2006. It had also promised that Salonit-Vranjic would be closed by the end of June 2006, but the coordinating body established for that purpose did not include the social partners. He expressed the hope that social dialogue and political awareness would finally lead to the commencement of action to resolve the asbestos problem in Croatia.

He recalled that the Government had opened negotiations for accession to the European Union (EU). This process included an analysis of the harmonization of the national legislation with the acquis communautaire, including those relating to occupational safety and health. An impact assessment had shown that action to address the situation of the Salonit plant would cost around 70 million kunas, but this analysis had not taken into account the costs of removing materials that contained asbestos and were built into production facilities, plants, ships, carriages, etc. The Government had stated that the country would not have difficulties in transposing the acquis communautaire in this field. However, the Croatian trade union movement seriously doubted the Government's assessment of the situation and the efforts that were necessary. The case of Croatia had been included in the preliminary list of individual cases which the Government had received in advance. He therefore regretted that the Government had not considered discussing the case nationally with the social partners. He indicated that such disregard of social dialogue was common, but was particularly serious in the case of asbestos. Although Convention No. 162 was not one of the ILO's fundamental Conventions, each Convention became fundamental if it was not implemented because what was at stake was human rights, commitments to international law and the achievements of civilization. The labour inspection for concentration of asbestos fibres in the air relevant to the case had taken place almost two years ago, in July 2004. Production at Salonit had now been halted because there was no demand for its products. It was to be regretted that it was only for economic reasons that production had been halted. He emphasized that workers were still working at the factory at that very moment. Failure to comply with the Convention amounted to a failure to respect human health and dignity.

The Worker member of Austria stated that the facts of the case spoke for themselves. The situation was a matter of great concern. It was vital to urge the Government to take measures that were sufficient to give effect to the recommendations made by the Committee of Experts. The Government had a dual responsibility in this case, firstly to adopt legislation that gave effect to the Convention, and secondly as the former owner of the Salonit factory. Clearly, the case involved a responsibility from the past, which was all the more important because the substances in question were highly dangerous. Those who were exposed included those who worked directly in the production and processing of asbestos and products containing asbestos and those who lived in the vicinity of the respective enterprises. They ran the risk of malignant tumours and serious disease, resulting in a terrible death. While there might be an appropriate legal framework to address the problem, what was of concern was its implementation in practice. Action needed to be taken immediately. The victims had a right to effective protective measures. If nothing was done, more and more people would be affected. It was therefore a matter of great frustration that the Committee had to address the case once again. What was needed was not just protection, but also post-exposure measures in the form of a coherent and consistent health plan to monitor potential victims and provide the necessary care for those who had been contaminated. He drew attention to the conclusions drawn in the context of the process of accession to the EU, where the Government and the European Commission appeared to have concluded that there was no problem of compatibility with the respective European regulations. However, he understood that there was a close correspondence between the requirements of the Convention and the provisions of EU legislation. If Croatia was not complying with the Convention, it could not be in conformity with EU legislation. Experience, including that of his own country, had demonstrated that this was a problem that could only be solved effectively with the full involvement of the social partners and national stakeholders. He therefore called upon the Government to engage in broad dialogue at the national level on the subject of how to deal with the very serious problem of asbestos faced by the country so that action could be taken to prevent any more asbestos-related diseases from occurring and to provide the necessary care and assistance to the victims.

The Government representative thanked the members of the Committee for their comments and reassured the Committee that the Government favoured tripartism to solve the problem and would bring together all the relevant partners as soon as possible. The Parliamentary Committee for Labour, Health and Social Affairs had decided to hold a session in that factory to be able to better appreciate the situation. According to the data provided by the Croatian Institute of Public Health, 297 cases of asbestosis had been found between 1990-2005. As a consequence of mesotomia, 37 persons died in 2000, 30 in 2001, 45 in 2002, 27 in 2003 and 38 in 2004. The draft ordinance on the protection of workers exposed to asbestos would be sent to the ILO in the near future. It was expected that the ordinance would be adopted by the end of 2006. It was regretted that it had not been possible yet to benefit from technical assistance for reasons beyond the Government's control. However, the Government was committed to cooperate with the ILO on these matters.

The Employer members thanked the Government member for the detailed information. However, it was still insufficient to ascertain the degree of compliance in law and in practice with the provisions of Convention No. 162. He expressed concern that, in spite of urgency that dated back three years, measures had not been taken to ensure full compliance with the Convention. The Employer members urged the Government to send detailed information that would permit effective verification that the conditions of workers exposed to serious health risks were in compliance with the provisions of the Convention. They asked that the means be made available to labour inspectors to allow them to measure the amount of asbestos as well as to ensure protective measures for workers, such as clothing and sanitary installations. They called upon the Government to establish effective systems of written information as well as adequate training for all workers in contact with asbestos. They considered that the Office should offer its assistance to the Government to allow it to meet its obligations regarding the Convention and requested that a high-level contacts mission visit the country to follow-up on this case.

The Worker members expressed the hope that the Government would work closely with the Office and the social partners in order to reach a solution and also to take measures as a matter of urgency to address and remedy all aspects of the case at hand. They felt that a lot of time had been wasted and that it was high time that the Government received a high-level direct contacts mission with a view to introducing measures, which would allow for the Convention to be fully implemented. Any further deterioration of the situation would be totally unacceptable.

The representative of the Secretary-General subsequently announced that the Government of Croatia had accepted the visit of a high-level direct contacts mission, as proposed by the Committee.

The Committee noted the oral and written information provided by the Government representative and the discussion that followed.

The Committee recalled the previous discussion and conclusions adopted in this Committee in 2003, as well as the comments of the Committee of Experts in 2004 and 2005.

The Committee, while regretting the previous limited response to the calls for urgent action in this area, noted the following information provided by the Government: that a ban on the production, marketing and use of certain asbestos fibres, including chrysotile, had been in force since 1 January 2006; that in the context of a labour inspection conducted from 15 to 17 May 2006, it had been determined that production had ceased at the Salonit-Vranjic factory site; and that, as part of an effort to resolve the asbestos problem through an integrated solution, the Government had set up for that purpose an inter-ministerial body coordinating the activities of three relevant ministries. It further noted the information that, at a meeting in January 2006, this inter-ministerial body had decided to prepare draft laws on Meeting the Claims of Workers Occupationally Exposed to Asbestos, amending the List of Occupational Diseases Law, as well as on Special Conditions for Acquiring Entitlements from Retirement Insurance for Workers Occupationally Exposed to Asbestos. It also took note of the information that proposals had been requested concerning appropriate measures to encourage the introduction of new technologies for asbestos-free production and that a recovery programme had been commissioned for repairing the environmental damage caused to the factory compound of the Salonit d.d. and the Mravinacka Kava dump site.

The Committee noted, however, that the Government did not provide any or very limited information regarding the volume of the remaining stocks of asbestos in the country and how to handle them in a safe manner; the extent of possible occupational exposure to asbestos in other workplaces in the country; the actual and required procedures for providing relevant information to workers on work with hazardous products; the current status of future legislation concerning the commercialization of asbestos products; the required and actual frequency of labour inspections, the manner in which labour inspection was carried out and the technical equipment made available to the labour inspectors; the actual and planned handling of asbestos waste; as well as the consultations carried out with the social partners on the measures to be taken including on the draft legislation.

In view of the time that had already elapsed and the serious nature of the situation, the Committee invited the Government to accept, as a matter of urgency, a high-level direct contacts mission with a view to verifying the situation "in situ" and to follow-up on this case. It also requested the Government to enter into effective consultations with the more representative employers' and workers' organizations regarding measures for an effective application of the Convention in both law and practice. The Committee further requested the Government to send a full and comprehensive report, to the next session of the Committee of Experts containing information on measures taken to bring its legislation in line with the Convention, on the situation of workers that might still be exposed to asbestos, and detailed information on all points raised by the Conference Committee and the Committee of Experts. The Committee expressed the firm hope that it would be able to note tangible progress in the near future.

The representative of the Secretary-General subsequently announced that the Government of Croatia had accepted the visit of a high-level direct contacts mission, as proposed by the Committee.