Mercurial Politics: Global and Regional Interplay in Mercury Policymaking Noelle Eckley Selin Harvard University Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences Cambridge, MA USA 2005 Berlin Conference 1 December 2005

Outline Overview of mercury (Hg) in the environment and international cooperation under UNEP Issue history and comparison with persistent organic pollutants (POPs). Why a Convention on POPs but not mercury? Three potential factors… Ways forward and a comparison of prospects for different approaches

INTRODUCTION TO THE MERCURY PROBLEM ATMOSPHERIC CONCENTRATIONS: 3X pre-industrial levels Deposition Burial Re-emissions from both natural and anthropogenic sources Anthropogenic Emissions Natural Sources Deposition Conversion to Methyl Mercury Potential human exposure LAND OCEAN U.S. EPA recommended limit for mercury in hair: 1 ug/g Noelle’s hair: 1.1 ug/g EPA benchmark dose (10% of births show neurological defects: 11 ug/g

Issue History: Mercury and POPs Early concerns in 1970s: domestic actions POPsMercury Late 1980s/early 1990s: renewed concern, long-range transport Arctic Assessments (1998) Silent Spring Minamata, Japan Regional actions: North America and Europe Heavy metals: Lead, cadmium, mercury DDT, PCBs 1998 Århus Protocol on POPs 1998 Århus Protocol on Heavy Metals Global Assessments IFCS assessments2002 Global Mercury Assessment UNEP Governing Council Mandate 2001 Stockholm Convention No agreement at UNEP GC Voluntary Mercury Programme

Status of International Cooperation on Mercury 2002: Global Mercury Assessment: sufficient evidence to warrant international action 2003: UNEP Governing Council EU, Norway advocate global agreement US, Canada, Mexico, others oppose Mercury Programme created 2005: UNEP Governing Council Some government submissions (Sweden, Switzerland, Philippines, etc.) support legally-binding agreement US, Australia, Japan, Canada propose partnerships Parties and stakeholders urged to develop partnerships – meet again in 2007 Why a treaty on POPs, and not on mercury?? What effect did Global Mercury Assessment have?

Why a global treaty on POPs but not Hg? Factors explaining international mercury policy 1.Political/Institutional Factors at National Level 2.Changing Landscape of Environmental Agreements 3.Nature of the Mercury Problem: scientific considerations and uncertainty

1. Political and Institutional Factors at National Level U.S., Canada, Australia as blocking coalition –Bush vs. Clinton administration: market-based approaches to environmental problems –National controversies on Hg in U.S. context –But, it’s easy to say U.S. is the problem – but can’t explain everything –Canada: proactive on POPs, but major metal industries

2. Changing Landscape of International Environmental Agreements Increasing emphasis on voluntary, rather than legally-binding action Is “convention fatigue” setting in? –Concerns about too much bureaucracy, too little coordination (ongoing Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management process)

3. Nature of the Problem: Mercurial Science? Mercury is both a regional AND a global problem Different forms of mercury have different long-range transport properties “Framing” of the international problem: local, regional or global? Preliminary results from GEOS-CHEM Mercury simulation (Harvard University Atmospheric Chemistry Modeling Group,

Ways forward Advantages of Convention: institutional coordination, monitoring, enforcement, legally-binding Advantages of partnerships: more funding to action-oriented projects, less overhead Include mercury in the Stockholm Convention? Prospects for 2007….