Rickford Vieira, WWF-Guianas Regional Goldmining Pollution Abatement Coordinator, February 2008
Between 2001 and 2007, UNEP Governing Council/ Global Ministerial Environment Forum (UNEPGC/GMEF) held several meeting to discussed the issue of global mercury use and human health and decisions were taken to further develop UNEP’s Mercury Program by initiating and disseminating a report summarizing supply, trade and demand information on mercury.1 Another decision requested that governments, the private sector and international organizations take immediate action to reduce the risks posed on a global scale in products and production processes and that further long term international action was needed to reduce the risks. A decision was also taken to assess the need for further action on mercury, including the possibility of a legally binding instrument, partnership and other possible actions. This cause was further advance during the 24th session of the UNEPGC/GMEF in Nairobi, Kenya in February 2007, where the discussion was centered on the need for global action to protect human health and the environment from exposure to mercury. The forum also recognized that the current global efforts to reduce risks from mercury are not sufficient to address the challenges posed by mercury and that greater effort among countries and international organizations were needed. WWF Guianas is currently contributing to this debate via a NGO forum established by the European Environmental Bureau (EEB) and as such developed this position paper to express our views on the mercury issues and human health.
Overview of the global
mercury debate
The UNEPGC/GMEF discussed the need for a global assessment of mercury at its 21st session in February 2001 in Nairobi, Kenya. A decision was taken to initiate a process for an assessment of mercury and its compounds, and requested the results of the assessment to be reported to the 22nd session of the General council.1 The decision included a clause underlying the need to take preventative actions to protect human health and the environmental, taking the precautionary approach into consideration.
At the 22nd in February 2003 in Nairobi, the UNEPGC/GMEF received the Global Mercury Assessment report and noted in the decision that there is sufficient evidence to warrant immediate action to protect human health and the environment form mercury releases and its compounds. 1 This will be facilitated by technical assistance and capacity building from UNEP, governments and relevant international organizations. The decision requested that consultations and cooperation be made with other intergovernmental organizations in order to avoid duplication and to invite submission of governments’ views on medium and long term actions on mercury, and to compile and synthesize these views for presentation at the GC’s 23rd session with a view of developing a legally binding instrument, a non-legally binding instrument, or other measures or actions.
The 23rd session of the UNEPGC/GMEF took place in February 2005, in Nairobi.
________________________________
1Earth Negotiations Bulletin, Interna-tional Institute for sustainable development
Delegates once again discusses the issue of mercury and a decision was taken to further develop UNEP’s Mercury Program by initiating and disseminating a report summarizing supply, trade and demand information on mercury The decision requested that governments, the private sector and international organizations take immediate action to reduce the risks posed on a global scale in products and production processes.
It concluded that further long term international action was requested to reduce the risks and to decide to assess the need for further action on mercury, including the possibility of a legally binding instrument, partnership and other possible actions.
During the 24th session (February 2007 in Nairobi) of the UNEPGC/GMEF, the issue of mercury was extensively discussed2 and participants’ preferences for international cooperation on mercury ranged from an immediate process towards developing a legally binding instrument, to incorporating mercury into existing conventions such as the BASEL or the Stockholm Convention, or concentrating on voluntary partnerships. The delegates agreed that a ‘two tract” approach could be employed to take immediate action on mercury while keeping the path open for a legally binding instrument in the future.
An ad hoc open-ended working group of governments and stakeholder representatives to review and assess options for enhance voluntary measures and new or existing internationally legal instruments, for addressing the global challenges posed by mercury.
There are also other conventions/forums that are addressing the mercury issues. The fifth session (September 2006) of the International Forum on Chemical Safety (IFCS) urged participants to initiate and intensify actions, as appropriate, to address the excess supply of mercury on a global scale through a variety of interventions, such as an export prohibition, preventing excess mercury from entering the global market, and a phase out of mercury primary production.
In addition to the Nairobi meetings, the European Commission convened an international Mercury Conference in Brussels, Belgium in October 2006. The discussions were centered on the much needed local, national, regional and global strategy/ies to reduce health and environmental risks related to the use of mercury. Options discussed included: development of a legally binding international agreement on mercury; inclusion of mercury in existing legally binding instruments, partnerships and other measures.
Why mercury use
of global concern?
Mercury is a scientifically demonstrated and politically acknowledged global pollutant (UNEP, 2002, 2005, 2006, 2007)3 and is among our most serious health and environmental hazards. Anthropogenic emissions of mercury result in direct human exposure and a build up in the global environment and subsequent transfer to humans via fish consumption.
_______________________________
2 Proceeding of the Governing Council/ Global Ministerial Environmental Forum 24th session, Decision 24/3; Chemical management, http://www.unep.org/gc/gc24/
3 Mercury substitution priority working list, Nordic Council of Ministers
Elemental mercury is significantly different than other trace metals in that it is predominantly in gaseous forms while others such as lead is distributed to the atmosphere with aerosols. The characteristic of gaseous metallic mercury means low aqueous solubility, relatively low reactivity and is quite stable. As such, gaseous elemental mercury has a long residence time enabling global transport. Its vapor pressure and biological processes allows it to be deposited and reemitted from land, vegetation and aquatic surfaces.
All these factors contribute to its spreading throughout the globe to areas where little natural or local man made mercury releases. Mercury accumulates in the aquatic food resources and deserves special attention, considering the growing world population requires increase food supplies and cannot risk an important nutritious food resource as fish and other aquatic food sources contaminated due to anthropogenic releases of mercury to the environment.
Mercury causes a variety of significant adverse impacts on human health and the global environment.
Mercury vapor may be fatal if inhaled and harmful if absorbed through the skin due to direct exposure to the liquid or its vapor. Mercury vapor cause immediate and potentially life threatening lung damage at high doses and harmful effects to the kidneys, nervous, digestive, respiratory, and immune systems at lower doses.
The most devastating effect of mercury is the toxicity produced by methyl mercury which can manifest itself at low levels. Mercury accumulates in rivers, creeks and ocean sediments, where it transformed into methyl mercury, which usually accumulates in fish tissue. This form causes the most serious health and environmental harm since it is widely present in ocean and lakes and builds up in predator fish at the top of the aquatic food chain and in shell fish in all parts of the world. The mercury levels of these fishes can be million of times higher that the levels in surrounding water. In most cases, the top predator species are the ones preferred by local interior communities.
Methylated mercury is of special concern for fetuses, infants and children because it impairs neurological development. When a woman eats seafood contaminated with mercury it accumulates in her body requiring several years to excrete. If she becomes pregnant within that time, her fetus will be exposed to methyl mercury in the womb which will affect the fetus’s growing brain and nervous system. Impacts on cognitive thinking, memory, attention language, and fine motor and visual spatial skills have been seen in children exposed to methyl mercury in the womb.
Several international environmental and health organizations including the United Nations Environment program (UNEP) and the World Health Organization (WHO) have identified the adverse effects of mercury pollution and have classified it as a serious global environmental and human health problem. In fact, the UNEP Governing Council has targeted reducing methyl mercury accumulations in the global environment as a major priority.
_______________________________________________________________________
1Earth Negotiations Bulletin, International Institute for sustainable development
2 Mercury substitution priority working list, Nordic Council of Ministers European Union ministers agreed on June 2007 to ban exports of mercury from the 27-nation bloc from July 2011 and the EU would set up clear criteria for how to store the substance safely once the ban was in force.4 The EU is the world’s largest mercury supplier through Spanish state-owned firm Mayasa, which provides about 1,000 tons of the total global supply of 3,600 tons a year
U.S. exports of elemental mercury would be banned starting in 2010 under legislation approved by a House panel on Oct. 30, 20075. The measure is designed to help stem the flow of commodity-grade mercury from industrialized countries to the developing world. In developing countries, millions of small-scale miners use the liquid metal to separate gold from sand. Mercury poisons the miners, including children, and also contaminates land and waterways where gold is extracted. In addition, mercury is released into the atmosphere when gold-mercury amalgam is heated, often in open pans, to release the precious metal.
Since 1999, WWF Guianas worked on the issue of mercury pollution from small to medium scale gold mining in the Guianas (French Guiana, Guyana, and Suriname)6. Some of the activities involved an education and awareness program, training of miners on mercury free gold processing techniques and the use of mercury retort to reduce mercury emission, monitoring the environment and the persons from interior communities exposed to mercury contamination. The results from the research work done by WWF suggest that mercury is definitely a serious threat in the region that needs to be further and appropriately addressed.
Voluntary versus legally binding approach to reduce mercury emissions
The international debate on mercury centers around two possible approaches.7 A voluntary approach, which may sometimes be the prefer approaches because some countries are unwilling to limit their options through legally binding commitments. It is believed that voluntary commitments may allow for greater experimentation, adaptation and flexibility, because they are easier to change than legally binding commitments, which in most circumstances require a possible policy amendment process. In the past a variety of approaches have been used in binding international environmental agreements to provide flexibility in light of changing scientific knowledge or other factors and can be a part of the process in this case
. ________________________________________________________________________
4Commission proposes ban on EU mercury exports, EUROPA, europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/06/1481 – 26k5Mercury Export Ban Chemical and Engineering Newspubs.acs.org/cen/news/85/i45/8545news5.html6 G. Hilson, R. Vieira, International Journal of Environmental Health Research, Challenges with minimising mercury pollution in the small –scale gold mining sector; Experiences from the Guianas, December 2007, pp 430-431
7 Study on options for control of mercury, United Nations Environmental Program, UNEP(DTIE)/HG/OEWG.1/2
Countries may be concerned of engaging into legally binding arrangements if the seriousness of the risks posed or the costs of compliance are uncertain. Numerous factors tend to support that legally binding commitments may be implemented and enforceable when compared to the voluntary ones.
Usually whenever the international community finalizes a legally binding agreement with meaningful commitments, a clear and concise statement in made and views the problem being addressed as serious and all the commitments as credible.
Voluntary commitments perceive these messages less clearly. The repercussion that a country has violated a legally binding obligation¾and thus has acted unlawfully¾is likely to have a greater impact than an identical allegation that the country has failed to fulfill a voluntary commitment.
Legally binding international commitments are regarded as “law,” their implementation by countries may be more consistent over time than may be the case for voluntary commitments. The legislative requirement for adopting a legally binding international instrument may also increase the likelihood that a country will implement and comply with it.
On the global scale, the high profile and stakes of a legally binding instrument can increase the likelihood that all relevant countries and pertinent stakeholders will participate in, or observe, the development of the instrument.
In the past, legally binding instruments created and sustained the international institutional support that has been necessary in dealing with global environmental problems. A legally binding approach may effectively lead to more consistency in solving the problem and can discourage countries that do not seriously want to address it or be a part of the process. It can stimulate innovation, and facilitate an efficient global transition to “mercury free” processes and technologies.
Summarizing the need for a legally binding approach on mercury
By endorsing a legally binding instrument, governments will make a clear statement that the problem being addressed is serious and that their commitments are credible. Without this, it is not likely that sufficient commitments can be secured to undertake the needed measures to adequately control mercury releases to the environment.
A legally binding approach requires a domestic process for ratification and requires the adoption of needed enabling legislation. This increases the likelihood that the agreed measures are implemented.
Commitments under legally binding instruments are more stable than commitments under voluntary approaches and can create more predictability and have a better climate for planning.
Legally binding agreements are more likely than voluntary approaches to create and sustain international institutional support needed to sustainable address global mercury pollution problems.
The control of mercury releases will require agreements to management international trade in mercury and trade in products that contain mercury. In the framework of a legally binding approach, this can be done in a consistent and enforceable manner without violating commitments under existing trade agreements.
A legally binding instrument can include a financial arrangement that obliges donor countries to provide the much needed financial and technical support. It also creates a high level government commitment to provide the support on a consistent and long term basis. Financial arrangement for a voluntary commitment tends to be soft and in most cases depends on the changing financial arrangements and priorities of donor countries. Over past three years, UNEP Chemicals voluntary approach program to control mercury yielded USD$1 million. During the same period, the financial mechanism of the Stockholm Convention (a legally binding agreement) provided developed countries and countries with economies in transition with more that USD$200 million.8
WWF Views
WWF supports the ban on export of metallic mercury and urges the international communities, intergovernmental organizations (IGOs), Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), civil society organizations, and the private sector to move expeditiously towards establishing and endorsing a global, legally binding instrument to control and possible abatement the atrocities that can be caused by mercury pollution. The legally binding instrument should take the following issues into consideration:
The environmental, economic, health and social impacts from all human activities that releases mercury to the environment and should be appropriately addressed while striving towards poverty reduction and other millennium developmental goals;
A provision/obligation from developed countries, for adequate financial, technical and capacity building mechanism to support developing countries and countries with economies in transition, in optimizing economic benefits without the use of mercury;
Promote eco-design, eco-labeling and other transparent and verifiable indicators while the effectively enforcing compliance of a legally binding arrangement.
________________________________________________________________________
8Quick Guide to Public Interest NGO Views of the Open Ended Working Group on Mercury (OEWG), unpublished. 11th Nov 2007
To apply the Precautionary Principal and the Polluter Pays Principal and other financial penalties;
Enhance the participation of local and indigenous communities to play an active stakeholder role in the reduction and monitoring of mercury emission; and
Establish a global environmental education and awareness program for mercury.
The short term approach should facilitate the partnership arrangements in critical areas wherever possible to reduce emissions and field test alternative techniques while the more long term strategy/instrument is developed.
Conclusion
The most successful long term strategy to successfully stabilize and reduce the level of global mercury emission is to have an endorsed legally binding instrument with the support of all countries. The entire process of establishing this instrument should be almost immediate. While debates are going on globally, mercury pollution is increasing with the recent significant increase in the price of gold and fossil fuel. Thus, in the short-term, partnership arrangements can probably be promoted at critical locations while the legally binding instrument is developed, to initiate the process of implementation for the long term strategy.
Even if mercury prices increase substantially, it is believe there may not be a widespread switch to a safer reagent without significant resources devoted to educating this category of miners about the associated health problems caused by mercury while providing low to no-mercury alternatives and enabling technology transfer.
References
1. Earth Negotiations Bulletin, International Institute for sustainable development
2. Proceeding of the Governing Council/Global Ministerial Environmental Forum 24th session, Decision 24/3; Chemical management, http://www.unep.org/gc/gc24/
3. Mercury substitution priority working list, Nordic Council of Ministers
4. Commission proposes ban on EU mercury exports, EUROPA,
europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/06/1481 – 26k
5. Mercury Export Ban Chemical and Engineering News
pubs.acs.org/cen/news/85/i45/8545news5.html
6. G. Hilson, R. Vieira, International Journal of Environmental Health Research, Challenges with minimising mercury pollution in the small –scale gold mining sector; Experiences from the Guianas, December 2007, pp 430-431
7. Study on options for control of mercury, United Nations Environmental Program, UNEP (DTIE)/HG/OEWG.1/2
8. Quick Guide to Public Interest NGO Views of the Open Ended Working Group on Mercury (OEWG), unpublished. 11th Nov 2007
