Status of the UNEP Global Mercury Assessment and U.S. EPA Support

May 1, 2002

Presented by Marilyn Engle

U.S. EPA, Office of International Affairs (EPA/OIA)

Mercury is a Global Problem• Mercury cycles globally• About 40% of deposition in U.S. comes from sources

outside our borders; and• About 65% of U.S. anthropogenic emissions deposit

outside our borders • Nicola Pirone (1996) observed:

– Emissions are declining in U.S.– However, “releases from human activities globally will increase

mercury deposition in the U.S. unless reductions also occur in other countries”

• We cannot meet our Hg goals by U.S. actions alone• Hence, we need to consider the international dimension as part

of our national Hg policies

What is needed?• We must have an international plan; coordinating with other countries

to effectively reduce global emissions & use• EPA has increased the priority given to addressing global mercury

issues• For example, the EPA Hg Action Plan addresses:

– International long-range transport and fate– Mercury as a global commodity– Technology transfer and capacity building to help reduce global

releases and exposures

• ECOS and others have also expressed the need for global study and action

–

Current International Agreements Addressing Mercury Bilaterally and Regionally

• 1997 Great Lakes Binational Strategy– U.S. & Canada

• North American CEC Mercury Action Plan– Mexico, Canada, U.S.

• Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy – Arctic Council– Numerous pollutants; 8 nations involved

• LRTAP Heavy Metals Protocol– Nations of the UN Economic Comm. for Europe…. – Agree to control Hg emissions & report emissions

• Northeast Mercury Study (Framework for Action)– U.S. Northeast States & Eastern Canadian Provinces

However, these International Agreements do not provide a

comprehensive global assessment or international risk management

approaches & policies

Thus, a Global Mercury Assessment and Development of International

Policy Options are Needed

UNEP Global Mercury Assessment• U.S. EPA/OIA & Dept of State (DOS) led negotiation of

UNEP Governing Council decision (on 2/9/02) to conduct a global Hg assessment

• The ongoing UNEP Assessment is evaluating:– Sources, emissions inventories, long-range transport, chemical

transformations, and fate– Production & use patterns as a global commodity– Prevention & Control Technologies & Practices, with associated

costs & effectiveness– Exposures, effects, impacts to humans and ecosystems– Ongoing actions & plans for controlling releases and limiting use

and exposures

• Study will id research needs; and outline policy options for addressing global adverse impacts

UNEP WorkPlan• Collecting and analyzing information submitted by many

Governments, Inter-government organizations (IGOs), and non-government organizations (NGOs)

• Producing a Scientific Assessment Report as well as Policy Options to present to UNEP Governing Council in February 2003 for their consideration

• Forming Working Group (WG)– Members nominated by Governments & NGOs– Participate in review process, report preparation, and discuss

policy options

• Other people (not on WG) will also have opportunity to participate, review materials

• Process may lead to international agreements

U.S. Input and Support• EPA (and other Federal Agencies) submitted

substantial technical information in each topic area, coordinated by DOS, on August 31, 2001

• EPA provided $100K in year 2001– About 40% of total pledges

• Additional support planned for 2002• The primary EPA reps to WG have been selected

– Additional experts from EPA and other Agencies will be involved working through the primary reps

Status and Timeline

• In 3/02, UNEP alerted nations of serious shortage of funds; thus needed to pare down review process

• After considering 2 options and input from parties, UNEP revised plans to the following:– UNEP plans to distribute a draft Assessment to WG in

April/May 2002 (for 6 week review)– WG Meeting (in English only), in 9/02 in Geneva

• Meeting papers (in English) will be distributed 6 weeks prior to meeting

– Final Assessment report by December 2002– Governing Council Meeting in February 2003

Countries responding to date:• Albania, Armenia, Austria, Bahamas, Republic of Belarus,

Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Republic of Cameroon, Canada, Central African Republic, Chad, China, Cote I’Ivoire, Croatia, Denmark, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gambia, Georgia, Ghana, Republic of Guinea, Honduras, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Republic of Korea, Kyrgyz Republic, Lesotho, Libya, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mexico, Republic of Moldova, Mongolia, Morocco, Nepal, Norway, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Seychelles, Slovak Republic, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Thailand, The United Republic of Tanzania, The United States, Togo, Kingdom of Tonga, and Zimbabwe

NGOs responding to date

• Ban Mercury Working Group; Basel Action Network; Bellona Foundation; Ecograph; GRASIM Industries LTD; Greenpeace; Health Care Without Harm; ICESPS; MAYA, S.A.; Northeast Midwest Institute; Physicians for Social Responsibility (SR), STORM Coalition; World Chlorine Council (WCC)

How Can You be Involved?• UNEP wants process to be “expeditious, open,

transparent and inclusive”• People & organizations can be involved by

working through WG members, or possibly by contacting UNEP directly

• The UNEP Global Mercury Assessment website is: www.chem.unep.ch/mercury

• Website provides info on WG members, timetable, WorkPlan, Status, and is continually updated