OWL recommends voting  AGAINST  the at-vote resolution, "Repeal: 'Asbestos Consumption, Disposal And Worker Protection'". The Delegate has been asked to cast their vote accordingly.

Please find below the Office's Analysis for an examination of the resolution and the reasons for the final recommendation.

What a difference 203 days can make. When Wallenburg last attempted a repeal in August 2022, The South Pacific lended his efforts a degree of support, highlighting that the target resolution was inflexible and deserved repeal - but that the repeal itself, as written, was too firmly on the side of Team Asbestos.
There may still be a case for repealing Asbestos Consumption, Disposal and Worker Protection. It is - for example - well-documented that it is plagiarised from an EU summary of a pan-European directive. Some might say that it does not go far enough to quash the threat of asbestos. And Wallenburg is still justified in insisting that the asbestos safety requirements are simultaneously ill-defined and overly restrictive.
But today, in explaining why the errors he highlighted in August are so egregious as to warrant repeal, he has highlighted why exactly they are not flaws. Even when arguing against the risk assessment rules, the repeal merely says it presents "no clear requirements" for assessment, despite the fact that future resolutions may nevertheless be enacted to elaborate on how "the nature and degree of exposure" will affect those exposed to asbestos.
The repeal also argues that the resolution's ban on asbestos production will impede housebuilding in less developed member states - although there is nothing standing between them and asking other member states (and the entities within them) with technical assistance in constructing asbestos-free housing. It goes on to insist that its bar on the "marketing of asbestos-containing products" will mysteriously require the emptying of all "asbestos-reinforced buildings," ignoring the realities of inheritance and even property transfer. But neither mandate has immediate effect, and (on Earth's count) will not take effect for another year and three months.
Repeals should make generous arguments. They should not assume that international co-operation to achieve common goals is impossible, that members will not take common-sense action to advance compliance, or that non-blockers can act as the final say on any given topic. Unfortunately, this repeal makes all of these assumptions. We cannot support it.

Thus, OWL recommends a vote AGAINST the at-vote resolution, "Repeal: 'Asbestos Consumption, Disposal And Worker Protection'".