Bridges Trade BioRes • Volume 8 • Number 18 • 17th October 2008
Global mercury regulation: one step forward
Discuss this articleShare your views with other visitors, and read what they have to say
The international community has taken strides towards the global regulation of the production, trade and consumption of mercury, a highly toxic bio-accumulating metal. Although there is no consensus yet, at a recent meeting in Nairobi on whether to opt for a new legally-binding instrument or a voluntary approach, countries managed to narrow down the options, and tease out the main elements of a regulatory system.
Around 250 participants from 90 countries attended the Second Meeting of the Ad hoc Open-ended Working Group (OEWG) to Review and Assess Measures to Address the Global Issue of Mercury in Nairobi, Kenya, from 6-10 October. The group has been mandated by the UNEP Governing Council to move the mercury regulation issue forward, and will be reporting back to the next Governing Council meeting in February 2009.
Participants discussed the basics of mercury regulation, including reducing supply and demand, reducing international trade as well as atmospheric emissions and ways to achieve environmentally sound management (ESM) of mercury-containing waste. They also considered safe storage solutions for mercury, remediation of mercury-contaminated sites and improvements to the information flow.
On trade specifically, a number of countries, including the EU, Norway and several African countries felt that mercury trade should be reduced. Japan agreed, and proposed that trade between nations be operated on the basis of “prior informed consent,” as is the case for many other regulated toxic substances. Japan made it clear it opposed any ban on trade in mercury, and Switzerland said trade in products containing mercury that had no substitutes should be allowed.
Disagreement emerged over whether the new global regulatory system should be limited to cover trade in elemental mercury only, or also products – including products destined for recycling or waste products – containing mercury. Following informal consultations during the course of the meeting, participants were able to agree on the need to regulate mercury-containing products in addition to mercury in its elemental form.
Participants also touched on the role of the WTO. China felt any restrictions on trade in mercury should be handled in that forum. Others disagreed, however, saying mercury trade should be addressed under the new global mercury regime, and noting that trade restrictions are allowed under Article 20 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade on health and environmental grounds.
Civil society groups welcomed the progress made at OEWG-2. “We now call upon the GC to finish the work that it started and establish a negotiating committee to develop a global treaty on mercury,” said Michael Bender of the Zero Mercury Working Group. “Only through a treaty will we see sufficient reductions in global mercury emissions, supply and demand,” he added. Most of the governments meeting in Nairobi supported a legally binding treaty, although some key players, such as the US, China and India, preferred going down the path of voluntary commitments.
“Second Meeting of the Ad Hoc OEWG to Review and Assess Measures to Address the Global Issue of Mercury,” EARTH NEGOTIATIONS BULLETIN, 13 October 2008; “Elements for a UN Global Framework on Mercury Agreed to,” EEB RELEASE, 10 October 2008.
Add a comment
Enter your details and a comment below, then click Submit Comment. We’ll review and publish the best comments.