A/HRC/21/48 chemicals so as to ensure that workers are not exposed to hazardous chemicals in excess of exposure limits, and to minimize risk. • Convention No. 174 concerning the Prevention of Major Industrial Accidents obligates States parties to “formulate, implement and periodically review a coherent national policy concerning the protection of workers, the public and the environment against the risk of major accidents” (art. 4) and “establish a comprehensive siting policy arranging for the appropriate separation of proposed major hazard installations from working and residential areas and public facilities” (art. 17). • Convention No. 176 concerning Safety and Health in Mines establishes standards for all mining operations, excluding oil and gas extraction. Parties to the convention must consult with representatives of employers and workers to formulate a policy on safety and health in mines consistent with the minimum standards set out in the Convention.34 • Convention No. 169 concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries recognizes the need for special safeguards of the rights of indigenous peoples to the natural resources, including mineral or sub-surface resources, pertaining to their lands, including the right to participate in the use, management and conservation of these resources and in the benefits of their extraction. 62. Despite the robust and varied protection offered by the ILO conventions, the Special Rapporteur stresses what he considers their three primary shortcomings. First of all, the lack of widespread ratification (ranging from 6 to 57 countries) of these conventions means that global commitment to the full extent of the standards articulated is difficult. 63. Secondly, implementation remains a substantial problem in States that have ratified some or all of these conventions. Indeed, several States parties to Convention No. 169 fail to adequately consult indigenous peoples prior to development and promotion of an extractive undertaking, despite the requirement under the Convention to establish or maintain procedures for consultation with affected indigenous communities, “with a view to ascertaining whether and to what degree their interests would be prejudiced, before undertaking or permitting any programmes for the exploration or exploitation of such resources pertaining to their lands” (art. 15, para. 2).35 With regard to asbestos extraction, Convention No. 162 has been somewhat successful in reducing asbestos extraction and consumption around the world from an estimated 4.73 metric tons in 1980 to about 2.11 metric tons in 2003.36 However, despite the adoption of the resolution concerning asbestos in 2006, which endorsed the “elimination of future use of asbestos,”37 extraction and use of 34 35 36 37 Arts. 2 and 3 of the convention obligate employers to adhere to the best practices of mine safety contained therein; the convention places the burden on employers to ensure mine safety, requiring them to inform workers of hazards, provide protection, access to medical care, as well as to take all practical steps to eliminate or minimize risk of harm to workers. Additionally, States parties must implement mine inspection programmes and make public statistics on the hazards associated with mining. For example, a human rights assessment report commissioned by a mining company found that Guatemala had violated its obligations under ILO Convention No. 169 by failing to establish a framework for consultation with indigenous peoples with regard to a mining operation that has substantial negative environmental impacts. See On Common Ground Consultants Inc., Human Rights Assessment of Goldcorp’s Marlin Mine, Executive Summary (May 2010), p. 12. United States Department of the Interior and United States Geological Survey, Circular 1298, Worldwide Asbestos Supply and Consumption Trends from 1900 through 2003 (2006), p. 17. Resolution adopted by the International Labour Conference at its 95th session, June 2006, para. 1. 17