1 / 10

Mercurial Politics: Global and Regional Interplay in Mercury Policymaking

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 .

muniya
Download Presentation

Mercurial Politics: Global and Regional Interplay in Mercury Policymaking

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. INTRODUCTION TO THE MERCURY PROBLEM ATMOSPHERIC CONCENTRATIONS: 3X pre-industrial levels Anthropogenic Emissions Re-emissions from both natural and anthropogenic sources Natural Sources Deposition Deposition LAND OCEAN Conversion to Methyl Mercury Potential human exposure 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 Burial

  4. Issue History: Mercury and POPs POPs Mercury Early concerns in 1970s: domestic actions Silent Spring Minamata, Japan Late 1980s/early 1990s: renewed concern, long-range transport Arctic Assessments (1998) Heavy metals: Lead, cadmium, mercury DDT, PCBs Regional actions: North America and Europe 1998 Århus Protocol on POPs 1998 Århus Protocol on Heavy Metals Global Assessments 1995-1996 IFCS assessments 2002 Global Mercury Assessment UNEP Governing Council Mandate No agreement at UNEP GC 2001 Stockholm Convention Voluntary Mercury Programme

  5. 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?

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

  7. 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

  8. 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)

  9. 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, https://www-as.harvard.edu/chem/trop)

  10. 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….

More Related