Global Mercury Science and Policy Assessing the Salience

Global Mercury Science and Policy: Assessing the Salience, Credibility and Legitimacy of the Global Mercury Assessment Noelle Eckley Selin Harvard University AGU Fall Meeting December 2006

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 governments support mercury agreement (EU, Philippines, etc. ) US, Australia, Japan, Canada propose partnerships Parties and stakeholders urged to develop partnerships – meet again in 2007 What effect did Global Mercury Assessment have? Why no agreement on actions on mercury? How can science/scientists help? [Selin and Selin, RECIEL, 2006]

CREDIBILITY: Is the assessment scientifically supported? • UNEP GC Decision 22/4: “Accepts the key findings of the global mercury assessment and finds that there is sufficient evidence of significant global adverse impacts from mercury and its compounds to warrant further international action to reduce the risks to human health and the environment from the release of mercury and its compounds to the environment” LEGITIMACY: Were interests taken into account fairly? • Participation open to all, some input from South • Review by globally-representative institution (UNEP Governing Council) SALIENCE: Is assessment relevant to decision-makers? • Need for Hg reductions not questioned • Supplemented by regional awareness-raising workshops • Continuing needs for information to support decision-making

CHALLENGE 1: EXPLORE CONNECTIONS AMONG SCALES % contribution of North American sources to total (wet + dry) deposition GEOS-Chem model U. S. mean: 20% Reflects influence of locally-deposited Hg(II) and Hg(P) in source regions [Selin et al. , JGR, 2006 (in press)] Partnerships: Will they address regional or global emissions concerns? Creating usable science: - Participation of stakeholders at multiple scales - Review and analysis of partnership progress and transparency - Partnerships for scientific assessment?

CHALLENGE 2: QUANTIFY SOURCES AND SINKS Major uncertainties: role of mobilization of previously deposited mercury (from land ocean reservoirs) climate impacts on future mercury cycling (evasion of stored Hg) links between atmospheric deposition and methylation [Strode et al. 2006, GBC, in press] other sources (artisanal mining, religious mercury, etc. ) Creating usable science: - Communication at science-policy interface - Use of local knowledge (e. g. small-scale miners) - Building capacity for national mercury assessments

CHALLENGE 3: IDENTIFY REDUCTION OPTIONS How can reductions be prioritized to have the greatest effect on human health? What are the prospects for future mercury-reducing technologies? co-benefits for mercury (e. g. sulfur) co-benefits from mercury (e. g. climate) [UNEP, Global Mercury Assessment] Creating usable science: - Collaboration among natural scientists and social scientists - Assessment of multiple environmental stresses and vulnerabilities