Interpretation of the source-specific substantive control measures of the Minamata Convention on Mercury

Abstract

Being persistent, toxic, and bio-accumulative, Mercury (Hg) seriously affects the environment and human health. Due to Hg's attribute of long-range environmental transport across national borders, especially through atmospheric transport, no country can fully protect its environment and human health with its own efforts, without global cooperation. The Minamata Convention on Mercury, which was formally adopted and opened for signature in October 2013, is the only global environmental regime on the control of Hg pollution. Its main substantive control measures are source-specific: its phasing-out, phasing-down, and other main substantive requirements all direct to specific categories of pollution sources through the regulation of specific sectors of the economy and social life. This Convention does not take a national quota approach to quantify the Parties' nationwide total allowable consumption or discharge of Hg or Hg compounds, nor does it quantify their nationwide total reduction requirements. This paper attempts to find the underlying reasons for this source-specific approach and offers two interpretations. One possible interpretation is that Hg might be a non-threshold pollutant, i.e., a pollutant without a risk-free value of concentration. The existence of a reference dose (RfD), reference concentration (RfC), provisional tolerable weekly intake (PTWI), minimal risk level (MRL) or other similar reference values of Hg does not necessarily mean that Hg cannot be regarded as non-threshold because such reference values have scientific uncertainties and may also involve policy considerations. Another interpretation is that Hg lacks a feasibly determinable total allowable quantity. There is evidence that negotiators might have treated Hg as non-threshold, or at least accepted that Hg lacks a feasibly determinable total allowable quantity: (1) The negotiators were informed about the serious situations of the current emissions, releases, and legacy deposition; (2) the UNEP Secretariat took the position that Hg is non-threshold and should be eliminated to the maximum; (3) European countries, the USA and other western countries were in a better position to regard Hg as non-threshold and push forward a global reduction of Hg emissions and releases to the minimum; (4) the negotiators took the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) as a model; and (5) a fairly large number of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) were organized under umbrella NGO networks such as the Zero Mercury Working Group (ZMWG) and the International POPs Elimination Network (IPEN) and made a significant contribution to the negotiation process. The interpretations for the Minamata Convention might similarly be used to interpret the source-specific approach of the Stockholm Convention on POPs and the national quota approach of global environmental regimes on stratospheric ozone and climate mitigation. These two interpretations focus on the features of the pollutants and for this reason may be useful for future negotiators of other international environmental treaties to select appropriate models. They also suggest that the source-specific approach may be adopted in the future for pollutants with similar features of being possibly non-threshold and without a feasibly determinable total allowable quantity.