Agenda Item 6: Implementation of the Programme of Work of the United Nations Environment Programme and the Relevant Decisions of the Governing Council

I take the floor now to address an important chemicals management issue, namely the risk associated with mercury contamination globally and what to do about it. At the outset, I wish to thank the UNEP Secretariat for its work under the Mercury Program, especially the recent report contained in UNEP/GC/24/INF/17, “Summary of Supply, Trade and Demand Information on Mercury.” The Governing Council requested this report two years ago at its 23^rd Session and it contains a wealth of information related to issues of mercury supply and uses. The United States supports further action to address the risks posed by mercury from uses and releases.

There are two questions before us now.

(1) What to do, and (2) how to do it.

As to the first question- what to do?- we believe that there is significant scope for improving and expanding on the partnership approach begun only two years ago. Since that time, we have undertaken partnerships in a wide variety of areas, including the following sectors: Chlor-Alkali Manufacturing; Coal-Fired Power-Plants; Products; Artisanal and Small Scale Gold Mining; and Fate and Environmental Transport.

These partnerships involve efforts planned or underway in nearly a dozen countries: Argentina, Brazil, Burkina Faso, China, Costa Rica, India, Mexico, the Philippines, Russia, Senegal, South Africa and Tanzania. On Wednesday at 1:45 pm in room 12, there will be a side event on the UNEP Mercury Partnerships and the experiences of countries in developing and implementing mercury reduction efforts. We hope that those of you who follow this issue will be able to attend this event.

We in the United States have devoted significant technical expertise, especially on the part of our Environmental Protection Agency, and some $4.4 million in funds to these efforts. I think it is fair to say that the United States has been the strongest supporter and the largest financial contributor to date to the partnerships as well as the overall Mercury Program. We also wish to applaud the efforts of those who have joined us in supporting the partnerships, in particular: Canada, Italy, and Japan, as well as Norway for its involvement in a chlor-alkali partnership in Russia, and to thank UNEP for its significant organizing role in establishing and maintaining the mercury partnerships.

We would like to challenge other donors, all of whom adopted Decision 23/9, to join us in this work and we would like to know more about the reasons they have not yet done so.

As mentioned, Mr. Chairman, we are grateful for the study on mercury supply, trade and demand done by the UNEP Secretariat and find much within it that should be cause to expand the partnerships to additional areas- areas such as vinyl chloride monomer production. In addition, we believe further effort is needed on waste incineration and, cement and non-ferrous metal production. These are clear needs that remain to be met.

Let me pause for a moment to share our views on mercury supply issues. First, we congratulate our European colleagues for their considerable progress in addressing the complex set of mercury supply issues through actions such as ceasing primary mining and considering options for long term storage of stocks of mercury. We think that all governments should give thought to the issue of mercury supplies within their national contexts and the United States is in the process of doing so. I would like to share our experience on one important aspect of the supply issues, storage. First, 70 percent of our excess supplies of mercury, which are held by our Departments of Defense and Energy, are already in long term storage. The remaining 30 percent of stocks are the subject of a domestic stakeholder process to be led by our Environmental Protection Agency. As a result of this process, we hope to understand better the hurdles to safe storage of these supplies and other barriers and incentives particular to the United States and to develop solutions to address the problem. We would like to urge other countries to commit to considering these issues at the national level as part of our work under the Governing Council’s decision.

While we welcome the information in the UNEP report on mercury supply, trade and demand, it only addresses half of the equation. The other half is the problem of mercury contamination caused by mercury emissions from activities not covered in the study- in particular coal combustion and the smelting and refining of minerals.

We recall that UNEP did a study of these issues some four years ago in the Global Mercury Assessment, and, in our view, this work is in serious need of updating. A significant portion of the global problem of mercury contamination is caused by air emissions, the majority of which is from coal combustion, and until this aspect is more thoroughly investigated, we will have no clear picture of the scope for reductions that may be possible. Without it, we cannot assess what can be done in this area, although we understand that some have suggested reduction percentages already. In our view these must be more empirically based.

For our part, we in the United States have done and continue to do much to reduce our air emissions of mercury. In particular, U.S. regulatory and voluntary industry actions have produced significant reductions in mercury emissions and are projected to obtain further reductions. Regulations and other actions issued in the 1990s to control mercury emissions from waste incineration have already achieved more than a 90% reduction in emissions from these facilities. Total man-made emissions in the United States have been reduced by 50% since 1990. The United States is also one of the few countries that regulates mercury releases from coal-fired power plants, which currently account for almost half of domestic mercury emissions. In 2005, the United States issued regulations for this sector that require nearly a 70% reduction by 2018. We have also achieved substantial reductions from chlor-alkali plants and metals production.

Air emissions are responsible for most of the mercury contamination globally. We need to have a better picture of what is happening in other countries to enable countries to have a solid understanding of the range of feasible mitigation options available to them. Further efforts in this area are needed to bring greater focus to the issue and the range of policy solutions to achieve reductions. In considering global mercury reductions it is essential that we have as complete a picture as possible of the risks we face.

Some may ask, “Well, why can’t we negotiate over the scope of reductions in the areas better studied, namely uses and products?” There are several reasons why we believe this to be premature.

First, as mentioned, we are dealing with a picture that is incomplete as it stands. We do not have sufficient information to set specific overall reduction goals. Second, there are limited technical and financial resources now available or that can be made available to address the risks of mercury contamination globally. As a result, it behooves us to have as complete a picture as possible to know where these resources can best and most effectively be applied. And third, it is as yet unclear to us where many countries stand on the priority they attach to these problems.

Do they accept that mercury risks currently are unacceptable, and if so, in what areas--particularly for developing countries and countries with economies in transition-- do they see the greatest near-term priority?

We need to hear from them much more specifically about the areas that pose the greatest risks and about the areas where they see the greatest scope for the success of near-term efforts to address them.

Knowing this will also help us better focus partnership efforts and activities, and in our view, partnerships hold the greatest potential for near-term, meaningful action on the ground to address global risks of mercury contamination.

This also brings me back to the second question I identified at the outset, namely, how best do we act to address risks of mercury contamination?

My delegation has long opposed efforts to negotiate a legally-binding agreement on mercury for several elemental reasons:

First, we believe that partnerships, if properly supported, are both more welcome and more effective than legally binding mandates and better reflect that many problems remain unsolved, not because of a lack of will, but because of a lack of means, both technical and financial, to tackle them.

Partnerships enable us to take action now in cooperation with countries across the globe to make specific, near-term progress, actually reducing mercury uses and releases to the environment in real time.

Second, there has been much concern with the proliferation of multilateral environmental agreements and with the problems many countries, particularly developing countries and economies in transition, have experienced with an increasing multitude of treaties, each with its own meeting schedule, reporting requirements and drain on scarce expert resources. Some have suggested that these resources could be better spent at home addressing real problems on the ground.

Third, a legally-binding instrument on mercury would necessarily create an entirely new international superstructure to address a single chemical- we do not believe that this is an efficient approach, notwithstanding our very real concerns about the risks of this chemical.

Fourth, we believe that calls to include other chemicals, such as lead and cadmium in such an effort ignore the very real differences between mercury on the one hand, for which there is an established problem of global transport, and lead and cadmium on the other hand for which there is not. In our view, there are other, more effective ways to address concerns about these chemicals such as through national or regional actions.

And fifth, if it is proposed not to create a new stand-alone MEA to address mercury but instead to amend existing ones, then this-- the UNEP Governing Council-- is not the forum in which to have that discussion.

With these views in mind, I am pleased to inform you that we have introduced a draft decision on mercury which reflects the priorities and concerns described in this intervention. We look forward to a robust discussion of our proposal in any contact group that might be established on this topic.

For all of the reasons I have enumerated, we reiterate our belief that the partnership approach on which we agreed two years ago is the right one, and we call upon others here to join in this effort enthusiastically. If only a handful do so, we will miss huge opportunities to effect real change and address real environmental problems that are clear priorities for developing countries and economies in transition today.