Mercury emissions

[Guest guest]

Pact to curb mercury is rejected

By Richard Black

BBC environment correspondent

 

World governments have concluded an agreement on reducing production

and use of the toxic heavy metal mercury.

It came at the biennial meeting of the United Nations Environment

Programme (Unep) Governing Council in Nairobi.

The agreement stops short of setting up a legally binding global

treaty, as the European Union had advocated.

Instead, it calls on member countries to establish " voluntary

partnerships " to reduce the damaging impacts of mercury pollution.

It also mandates Unep to pursue various avenues of further research,

including a project to document mercury use in much greater detail

than has been done before.

 

Mercury is a naturally occurring metal released into the environment

from rocks and soils, and in volcanic eruptions. But human

activities, including mining, industry and power generation, are

continually adding more.

About 70% of mercury emissions of human origin come from the burning

of coal and the incineration of waste materials.

And once in the environment, this pollution can travel long

distances.

Quick action

The discussions in the Kenyan capital brought together two opposing

views on how to tackle mercury.

One bloc, led by Norway and Switzerland and supported by member

states of the EU, argued that a binding treaty would be the most

effective way to reduce production and use.

This was opposed by the United States and its allies, which advocated

instead the " voluntary partnerships " approach - although the precise

nature of these partnerships between as yet undefined groups of

governments, international organisations such as Unep or the World

Bank, and industry has yet to be worked out.

The meeting's final document makes it clear that the US vision had

won; the concept of a global treaty is there, but only in the context

of an option which might possibly be considered in the future.

" We were able to convince the EU, Norway and Switzerland that we need

immediate action, " the leader of the US delegation, deputy assistant-

secretary for Environment, Claudia McMurray, told BBC News.

" We can get started on this quickly, whereas agreeing a treaty could

take years; but we do have other language saying we will look at this

again after a period of time. "

Binding regulations

For environmental groups, this is not the only reason why the US

opposed a global treaty.

" The US government is due to finalise new regulations on its own

power stations next month, " Felice Stadler, a director of the US-

based Mercury Policy Project told BBC News.

Coal-fired power stations are the biggest source of mercury within

the United States, accounting for around 40% of US production.

 

" They are basically re-writing sections of the Clean Air Act, "

claimed Ms Stadler.

This interpretation was backed up by a source within the US

government's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

This source told BBC News that the agency's leaders wanted to avoid a

binding international set of regulations because it would restrict

their room to regulate US mercury emissions.

The EPA published a draft set of regulations, the Clean Air Mercury

Rule, in January 2004; a mandatory 60-day public consultation period

followed, during which the agency received more than 680,000

responses - the most it has ever received on any issue.

Most criticised the draft regulations for being too lenient,

according to the BBC's source.

Safe levels

Claudia McMurray, speaking to BBC News from the Nairobi meeting,

dismissed the idea that US domestic issues were dictating its

international stance.

" The US is making history; the US has never regulated mercury

emissions from power plants before, and neither has any other

developed nation, " she said.

European support for a global treaty is an extension of the position

it has recently adopted on its own mercury production.

At the end of January, the European Commission launched a " Mercury

Strategy " aimed at reducing use and production of the metal.

Its components include:

• elimination of mercury exports from the EU by 2011

• banning the marketing of measuring devices containing

mercury - such as thermometers - with certain exceptions

• eliminating mercury use in the chlor-alkali industry (the

plants that convert salt and water into chlorine and caustic soda,

staple ingredients for the chemical industry).

Explaining the reasoning behind the strategy, the commission says

that " mercury and its compounds are highly toxic to humans and the

environment.

" Although most people in Europe appear to be within internationally

accepted safe levels for exposure, there is evidence that some people

are around or above these levels, especially in coastal areas of

Mediterranean countries and the Arctic. "

Stabilising production

Mercury bio-accumulates - that is, it builds up in the tissues of

animals.

Predatory fish are exposed to mercury themselves, and they eat other

marine creatures which may also contain the metal; high levels can

accumulate in their bodies, which is why pregnant women are advised

to regulate their consumption of such fish, protecting their unborn

children from exposure.

In fact, there is already one international agreement regulating

mercury, the United Nations Protocol on Heavy Metals, which entered

into force in December 2003.

It commits signatory countries to stabilise production, but not to

reduce it.

This is the gap which the European Union, along with its allies, was

hoping to plug at the Nairobi meeting.

" The US just has an aversion to all international treaties, " Linda

Greer, director of the Environment and Health Programme at the US-

based campaign group the Natural Resources Defence Council, told BBC

News from the Kenyan capital.

" It really seems a shame that [the EU] came to the table with such a

strong proposal - and in addition you had the developing countries,

the G-77, feeling that all the mercury in the world is flowing

towards them.

" So we had all the ingredients for a meaningful agreement; but the

United States was very obstructive to every idea except their

partnership proposal. "