Fw: [hg-inc3] What Happened at Mercury INC3?
yuyun ismawati
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
hg-...@npogroups.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
hg-inc3-u...@npogroups.org
For all list information and functions, see:
http://npogroups.org/lists/info/hg-inc3
Dear colleagues,
Last week more than 120 countries gathered in Nairobi, Kenya to negotiate a global mercury treaty at the 3rd Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee meeting (INC3). The IPEN delegation at INC3 included 36 participants from 20 countries. The meeting was difficult and there is a long way to go to reach a treaty. You can see a link below to the IPEN press release about the meeting.
IPEN engaged in some key collaborations during INC3 including the Global Indigenous Peoples Caucus and Human Rights Watch. Indigenous representatives included the California Indian Environmental Alliance, Indigenous Environmental Network, Inuit Circumpolar Council, International Indian Treaty Council, and Island Sustainability Alliance.
IPEN, Human Rights Watch, and the Global Indigenous Peoples Caucus did a joint intervention on ASGM which emphasized child labor and human rights issues. In addition, IPEN and Human Rights Watch in cooperation with iLima and Radiojojo Children’s Radio Network also managed to organize an interview with two child laborers from Kenya’s ASGM site which was not able to be played in the plenary but available online at http://www.radijojo.de/WCN_neu/english/page/unten.php?pl=News&kontinent=News&punkt=news.
IPEN did an action at the meeting to highlight the true cost of gold resulting from artisanal and small scale gold mining. The links below show the postcard with the chocolate “gold coin” idea along with the press release for the action and photos.
To help advance progress on key issues, intersessional work between now and INC4 will include the following:
1. Financial mechanism
2. Emissions and releases
3. Products and processes
In addition, a document will be prepared for INC4 that surveys which articles require action plans and reporting. The document will be used to discuss the topic of actions plans and national implementation plans at INC4.
Below are relevant links and a brief report on what happened at INC3. Thanks to all the colleagues who helped fill in details on this report. Colleagues who participated in the meeting are welcome to provide further insights and reactions.
Best regards,
Joe D.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Joseph DiGangi, PhD
Senior Science and Technical Advisor
IPEN
Links
IPEN Initial views on the draft mercury treaty text (many languages)
IPEN’s press release on the outcome of INC3
http://ipen.org/hgfree/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/IPEN-Press-Release-for-INC3.pdf
IPEN gold coin poster here:
http://ipen.org/hgfree/inc3/ipen_africa_hggold_poster_p2-v1/
IPEN gold coin press release here:
Photos from IPEN gold coin action
IPEN interventions at INC3
UNEP INC3 page with meeting documents
http://www.unep.org/hazardoussubstances/Mercury/Negotiations/INC3/tabid/3469/Default.aspx
Earth Negotiations Bulletin reporting
Summary Report (Monday, 7 November 2011)
http://www.iisd.ca/download/pdf/enb2808e.pdf
Highlights for Friday, 4 November 2011
http://www.iisd.ca/mercury/inc3/4nov.html
Highlights for Thursday, 3 November 2011
http://www.iisd.ca/mercury/inc3/3Nov.html
Highlights for Wednesday, 2 November 2011
http://www.iisd.ca/mercury/inc3/2nov.html
Highlights for Tuesday, 1 November 2011
http://www.iisd.ca/mercury/inc3/1Nov.html
Highlights for Monday, 31 October 2011
http://www.iisd.ca/mercury/inc3/31Oct.html
1. Releases to all media
IPEN goals:
1) An all-media mercury control treaty with a single article that addresses releases to all media (air, land, water etc).
2) Eliminate the concept of significant aggregate emitters since it requires action plans from only a small number of countries. All countries should have to make an action plan.
What happened at INC3:
1) There was strong support for a combined article to address releases to air, land, and water. The African region (53 countries) and the Latin American and Caribbean region (33 countries) strongly supported a combined comprehensive article. Canada, European Union, Japan, Korea, USA, and others supported separate articles.
2) Canada, EU, Japan, and Switzerland supported the significant aggregate emitters concept. Brazil, China India, Iran, and Malaysia opposed the idea. The African region asked for a “clearer definition”
3) Oil producing countries pushed to eliminate oil and gas from the list of mercury sources, citing a presentation from ExxonMobil at the technical briefing session… and despite high production volumes. IPEN believes that eliminating this source from relevant annexes is premature.
4) China and India led countries who pushed for a voluntary approach to air emissions.
2. Developing BAT/BEP Guidelines
IPEN goal: The negotiators should make a general definition and principles underlying Best Available Techniques and Best Environmental Practices (BAT/BEP). If not, the expert group will become paralyzed.
What happened at INC3: A general definition of BAT appeared in the draft. BEP still needs to be added to the treaty along with a definition and general principles. Note that many countries mentioned the need for BAT/BEP guidelines and not just BAT guidelines.
3. ASGM and large-scale mining
IPEN goal: Mandatory measures aimed at eliminating mercury use and mercury releases in ASGM through an obligatory national action plan.
What happened at INC3:
1) Many regarded work on ASGM as the “success story” of INC3. However, the details paint a different picture.
2) Confusion about whether Parties *should* or *shall* take steps to act on ASGM. USA pushed the “should” language into the text and Brazil supported voluntary measures to deal with ASGM (largest deliberate use of mercury). USA also proposed that the Article should only apply to countries with a production threshold for gold which many ASGM countries opposed because they said it would be impossible to obtain the needed data.
3) Disagreement about whether the national action plan should be part of the National Implementation Plan
4) Disagreement about whether an exemption should allow continued import of mercury for use in ASGM (and continued poisoning of communities). There was a misconception and concern among the ASGM countries that banning mercury will shut down the ASGM sector immediately and risking poor people’s ‘only’ livelihood.
5) IPEN strongly supported proposals by Nigeria and Indonesia to include a requirement to develop a public health strategy (now in brackets signaling disagreement).
6) IPEN also strongly supported proposals by Nigeria and Indonesia to require prevention of exposure of vulnerable populations as a mandatory approach (not voluntary) in the National Action Plan. This is also in brackets signaling disagreement.
7) We were successful in pushing for the promotion of mercury-free methods while eliminating the worst four practices in ASGM but not successful in language eliminating child labor and mercury exposure to women of child bearing age
8) There is no language about clean up and remediation of the extensive contamination that ASGM leaves behind.
9) Regarding the legacy contamination in large scale gold mining and mercury releases from large scale mining, no countries responded or addressed these issues.
10) In the Product and Processes Contact Group ASGM was deleted from Annex D, Article 7 para 1 option 1 proposed by Japan with the assumption that it will be accommodated in Article 9. Article 7 para 1 option 1 is about manufacturing processes not allowed under Article 7 with exemption.
11) In the Emissions and Releases Contact Group, ASGM was also deleted from Annex F & G assuming that the issue of releases to all media would be accommodated in Article 9. However, the ASGM CRPs says nothing about the release of mercury from ASGM to all media.
4. Wastes
IPEN goal: Mandatory measures on wastes within the treaty instead of delegating responsibility for the matter to the Basel Convention. Provisions should include minimizing and preventing the generation of mercury waste, liability and compensation measures, and a requirement for a national action plan.
What happened at INC3:
1) Disagreement whether “all” or “relevant” provisions of Basel apply to the mercury treaty; note that the text is inclined toward revising the Basel Technical Guidelines rather than establishing new guidelines under the mercury treaty
2) Disagreement about how to refer to the Basel guidelines on waste, though the Canadian co-chair made a clear move to push things toward Basel having all the responsibility
3) No provisions to minimize and prevent the generation of mercury-containing wastes; this will come up again at INC4 when consideration will be given to a language proposal made by Philippines and supported by Switzerland
4) No liability and compensation measures
5) No application of the polluter pays principle
6) No requirement for a national action plan on this topic; it was in the draft text but *removed* by the contact group
7) Overall the text weakens the draft language and moves toward “voluntary” and “where feasible” approaches
8) A large part of the text contains brackets (signaling disagreement and options). This means a big push is needed between now and INC4
5. Contaminated sites
IPEN goal: Mandatory plans for developing a comprehensive inventory of mercury-contaminated sites (including mercury compounds) within their jurisdiction, including a full characterization and evaluation of each site and health impacts on the affected populations and implementation of the polluter pays principle. It would be ironic to name a global mercury control treaty the Minamata Convention without it including any obligations on its Parties to protect the public from contaminated sites
What happened at INC3:
1) Delegates agreed on a voluntary approach to contaminated sites. The text of the first paragraph reads, “Each Party shall endeavour to develop appropriate strategies for identifying and assessing sites contaminated by mercury and mercury compounds.” This is substantially weaker than Stockholm Convention language and a huge disappointment. Donor countries pushed this position based on cost considerations and no developing country defended mandatory provisions.
2) Disagreement whether actions to reduce risk should include assessment of health
3) No agreement over whether guidelines on management of contaminated sites should be developed
4) No mandatory action required for cleanup of sites; in fact the language options include “may cooperate” and doing things “as appropriate”
5) No country was willing to propose and defend inclusion of the Polluter’s Pay Principle
6) No text on compensation to victims
7) The entire section on contaminated sites is quite weak and needs a stronger push at INC4
6. Financial mechanism and links to compliance
IPEN goal: There is merit in linking finance to compliance, however serious problems will result if important treaty provisions are voluntary since that would make them ineligible for financing. Least Developed Countries (LCDs) and Small Island Developing States (SIDs) should receive privileged access to the financial mechanism.
What happened at INC3:
1) A contact group met to discuss general issues relating to financial and technical assistance; the conversation was slow and essentially no progress was made on this topic
2) China and India proposed a conference room paper outlining a voluntary “menu approach”
3) China opposed the polluter pays principle but Kenya proposed that the private sector could play a role in take back of mercury-containing products and proposed extended producer responsibility be written into the treaty
4) Provisions relating to contaminated sites are not likely to receive financing since action is voluntary (see above)
5) Intersessional work will begin to try to advance the discussions
7. Naming of the treaty
IPEN goal: Solidarity with the impacted community of Minamata and their call for specific needs to be addressed before the treaty takes the name, Minamata. You can see the details here:
http://ipen.org/hgfree/honoring-minamata/
What happened at INC3: This became a controversy in the contact group on storage, wastes, and contaminated sites. IPEN strongly pushed for mandatory provisions to addressed contaminated sites along with the polluter pays principle. During one intervention, IPEN noted that the proposed treaty name is directly linked to the Minamata tragedy which resulted from a contaminated site and that mandatory action was need to prevent future Minamatas. This angered the Japanese delegation who claimed that Minamata was “all cleaned up” and emphasized that Minamata is not a contaminated site, saying it was in the Minamata Bay a long time ago. Upon further explanation, the delegation understood IPEN was referring to the prevention of *future* Minamatas.
8. Other topics
National Implementation Plans (NIPs)
IPEN gave strong support to NIPs in a joint intervention with the Global Indigenous People’s Caucus, Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives, Health Care Without Harm, Island Sustainability Alliance Cook Islands and the World Federation of Public Health Associations. You can read it here:
http://ipen.org/hgfree/inc3/ipen-gaia-hcwh-isaci-wfpha-gipc-03112911-joint-intervention-on-nips/
However, the EU proposed a voluntary approach to NIPs and China appeared to support the idea by using a word which is very popular in the negotiations; “flexible”.
Information exchange
Delegates agreed that safety information should be exchanged but there was no agreement that health impacts and epidemiological information should be included. Delegates also disagreed whether information from NGOs could be included in the exchange of information facilitated by the secretariat. A central pillar of information exchange is *not* considering health and safety information confidential business information. China attacked this provision by proposing “subject to the national laws of each country”. Delegates disagreed on whether to include this phrase.
Public information, awareness and education
Public information includes health, environmental effects, and alternatives. So far, NGOs are included under broad participation in education, training, and public awareness but vulnerable populations are excluded. The section on promoting PRTR is weak (“sympathetic consideration” or “use existing or consider”). Article 20 bis on Health as proposed by Brazil was postponed to be discussed in INC4. Countries cited the lack of health experts within the delegations in the contact group, but the undercurrent indicated concerns over cost obligations.
Products and processes
Australia, Indonesia, Korea, Oman, and USA supported a positive list approach in which all products are permitted except for those on the list. In contrast, Africa (53 countries), Norway, and Switzerland supported a negative list approach in which all products are banned except for those on the list. Algeria, China, Chile, India, and Pakistan supported a voluntary approach to products and processes.