Table 2.
Basic characteristics of analyzed countries by the status of their National Asbestos Profile (NAP).
| Country Category | Number of Countries | Income Category 1 | Region | Status of Asbestos Ban | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HI | UMI | LMI | LI | Western Pacific | South East Asia | Europe | Americas | Africa | East Mediterranean |
Banned | No-Ban | ||
| A: Countries that have bona fide NAP 2 | 14 | 3 | 3 | 8 | 0 | 7 | 4 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 9 |
| (7%) | (5%) | (6%) | (16%) | (0%) | (28%) | (36%) | (6%) | (0%) | (0%) | (0%) | (8%) | (7%) | |
| B: Countries that do not have bona fide NAP but have proxy NAP 3 | 98 | 49 | 28 | 15 | 6 | 17 | 4 | 39 | 14 | 12 | 12 | 51 | 47 |
| (50%) | (78%) | (52%) | (31%) | (21%) | (68%) | (36%) | (72%) | (40%) | (26%) | (57%) | (78%) | (36%) | |
| C: Countries that have neither bona fide or proxy NAP but have other relevant published information | 51 | 10 | 14 | 16 | 11 | 2 | 2 | 8 | 13 | 19 | 7 | 9 | 42 |
| (26%) | (16%) | (26%) | (33%) | (38%) | (8%) | (18%) | (15%) | (37%) | (40%) | (33%) | (14%) | (32%) | |
| D: Countries with no relevant published information | 32 | 1 | 9 | 10 | 12 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 8 | 16 | 2 | 0 | 32 |
| (16%) | (2%) | (17%) | (20%) | (41%) | (4%) | (9%) | (7%) | (23%) | (34%) | (10%) | (0%) | (25%) | |
| All countries | 195 | 63 | 54 | 49 | 29 | 27 | 11 | 54 | 35 | 47 | 21 | 65 | 130 |
| (100%) | (100%) | (100%) | (100%) | (100%) | (100%) | (100%) | (100%) | (100%) | (100%) | (100%) | (100%) | (100%) | |
1 HI: high income; UMI: upper-middle income; LMI: lower-middle income; LI: low-income based on the World Bank Income Classification. 2 See text for exact definition of bona fide NAP. 3 See text for exact definition of proxy NAP.