Exploring the STAP Contribution to the GEF Mercury Work in GEF-6.
Unlike previous Conventions, in the case of the Minamata Convention on Mercury (opened for signature
as of October 2013), there have been fairly comprehensive assessments to identify the sources of
Mercury emissions, precluding the need for a NIP-like approach and diminishing the expected level of
soft investment required historically. At present the GEF Council has decided that USD 10 Million will be
made available for Minamata Initial Assessments (MIA’s) to help countries to determine what national
level Mercury work they should prioritize, and the GEF Secretariat has provided guidance for the MIAs.
Therefore by the end of 2014, the Global Environment Facility (GEF) should be able to give some
indication to countries about what types of activities they can expect to be funded for to implement the
Convention.
The UNEP 2013 Global Mercury Assessment1 provides the most recent information available for the
worldwide emissions, releases, and transport of mercury in atmospheric and aquatic environments.
Aquatic pathways, transport and fate are also explored. The breakdown of mercury emissions across
sources as of 2010, sees Artisanal Small-Scale Goal Mines (ASGM) bypass transportation as the lead
emitting source of mercury. The breakdown details are as follows : ASGM – 37% (727t), Fossil fuels –
26% (500t), Metals production – 18% (348t), Cement production – 9% (173t), Products – 5% (96t), Chlor
alkali -1% (28t), other – 4% (86t)2.
However, this document cites that large uncertainties remain in global estimates of mercury emissions
to the air; and this uncertainty stems from various sources, including the availability of information on
activity levels, but mainly from the lack of information concerning the mercury content of some raw
materials and the validity of assumptions regarding processes and technologies employed to reduce
mercury emissions, including their rates of application and effectiveness. The document also points out
that the accuracy and precision of measurement-based estimates can depend on the validity of
extrapolating measurements made at infrequent intervals to longer periods, or measurements made at
one plant to other facilities with similar operations. Some potentially important emissions sectors still
remain to be quantified in the emissions inventory3, but the Assessment also takes the time to explore
gaps in the understanding of the movement and fate of Mercury in the wider environment. This is an
area in which the GEF partnership, and the STAP in particular, is seeking to help expand knowledge, and
there are signs that this could be an area for collaboration with the Mercury Partnership to improve the
state of knowledge.
The suggested actions/activities on improving knowledge on Mercury, as articulated in the current 2013
Global Assessment, are stated as follows:-
1
UNEP, 2013. Global Mercury Assessment 2013: Sources, Emissions, Releases and Environmental Transport. UNEP Chemicals
Branch, Geneva, Switzerland. http://www.unep.org/PDF/PressReleases/GlobalMercuryAssessment2013.pdf
2 Sectors for which emissions are not currently quantified include biofuel production and combustion, vinyl-chloride monomer
production, emissions during secondary metals production and ferro-alloys, oil and gas extraction, transport and processing
other than refinery emissions, industrial / some hazardous waste incineration and disposal, sewage sludge incineration,
preparation of dental amalgam fillings and disposal of removed fillings containing mercury. (UNEP 2013. Global Mercury
Assessment).
3 Cited sources include the use of mercury in vinyl-chloride monomer production; secondary metals production; oil and gas
extraction, transport, and processing; industrial and hazardous waste incineration and disposal; sewage sludge incineration;
and dental fillings preparation and removal.
 There should be a move to anchor a permanent global integrated monitoring network to cover
soil, water and biological aspects of Mercury in the environment, with concurrent
improvements in quality and coordination of measurements to determine spatial and temporal
trends. This in turn would facilitate modeling and more accurate picture of the impacts of
mercury emissions.
 Coordinated high altitude studies to generate better data on mercury distribution in the
troposphere are needed to improve understanding of long-range transport and source-receptor
relationships; which will also help validate regional and global scale models, improving their
prediction capabilities with regard to different policy scenarios.
 Improved understanding of key chemical and physical processes related to global transport and
cycling of mercury remain inadequately understood and would require additional measurement
and modeling studies to achieve the required level of understanding. For example, the chemical
form of gaseous oxidized mercury is unknown; and so reduction and oxidation rates for mercury
in the presence of atmospheric oxidants need further study, including determining which
oxidants are important.
 There is little data available for reporting mercury releases to aquatic systems, including
releases from contaminated soils to waters that may be influenced by climate and topography.
Systematic and consistent monitoring of mercury releases to the air is required, especially for
contaminated systems. Consistent approaches for measuring and reporting releases from point
sources are needed to ensure comparability of data from around the world. In particular, the
actual role of artisanal and small-scale gold mining (ASGM) in emissions to air and releases to
water needs to be more accurately estimated.
 The link between mercury deposition, methylation, and uptake by living organisms needs
further study, since there is inadequate understanding of the parameters that determine the
rates of exchange of mercury compounds within whole ecosystems (ie. between air and sea, air
and soil, and air and vegetation). Methylation/demethylation rates, and their spatial and
temporal variations and relationship to climatic factors, need to be determined in most of
world’s major ocean basins, as well as in representative freshwaters.
Proposed areas of Collaboration to improve Mercury Knowledge
At the recent retreat between the GEF Secretariat, STAP, Chemicals Conventions Secretariats and UNEP
Chemicals4, there were discussions on the potential role of targeted research in furthering knowledge
on mercury. Acknowledging the work of UNEP Chemicals and the Mercury Partnership as a whole, the
STAP, though charged with advising and assisting the GEF in making funded interventions scientifically
sound and enhancing knowledge generation in the GEF, also sees it critical to build on pre-existing work,
and to form partnerships, if it is to serve this area of work in the GEF. The knowledge gaps articulated in
the 2013 Mercury Assessment mirror comments gathered from others in the STAP’s scientific network.
Whilst there has been far better progress in scientific assessment of Mercury at the open of the
Convention as compared to other conventions, the STAP sees that in the absence of an IPCC-like body
4
Held in Glion, Switzerland, January 20-24, 2014.
for the Convention, then there should be a concerted effort to anchor a global monitoring network to
facilitate the work of modelers and others who generate advice for action on Mercury. At the moment
there is an excellent start made in locating emission sources, and setting priority areas for funding to
halt further releases to the environment. However, recognizing Article 12 of the Minamata Convention
(which seeks to articulate strategies to identify and assess contaminated sites, and reduce the risks
thereof), as well as the overall Convention objective to “protect the human health and the environment
from anthropogenic emissions and releases of mercury and mercury compounds”, then it is clear that
one is seeking to break the cycle of risk and exposure of the biological environment from mercury. As
such, transport, fate and exposure must be assessed quantifiably, and one must understand the key
chemical and physical processes related to global transport and cycling of mercury in order to assess risk
to the organism. Therefore one needs, inter alia, a centralized data platform of streamlined data,
standardized quality and treatment of data, and modeling ability to understand risk by incorporating
both emissions and mercury species behavior in the environment.
The STAP is currently engaged with the Society for Eco-toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC)5, and in early
2014 has begun initial thinking for a targeted research concept. The intention to work on improving
understanding of mercury in the environment was shared at the aforementioned Chemicals retreat,
with the hope that the STAP can flesh out the concept with input from UNEP and the Mercury
Partnership overall. This would avoid duplication of effort, and contribute to current efforts to
consolidate information, and sharing of such. In considering a central, global, information platform,
regardless of the sample type that could represent an exposure route to humans (eg. atmospheric, soil,
biological), data must be of a defined quality, so that researchers know what they need to submit in
order to permit the risk modeling community to improve and confidently run their models. As such,
proper development of protocols for such sample types is critical.
As a global network, SETAC can help the Mercury Partnership and the GEF in facilitating and encouraging
those in possession of data, or who collect data, to follow appropriate data protocols and submit to the
appropriate central platform, as well as solicit permission for others to use their contributed data.
Targeted research could help out in testing the protocols for the additional data sets (for biota, soil etc
since atmospheric and aquatic data gathering is farther advanced) to make sure that the protocols bring
about the desired standard of data quality, and enable more accurate modeling.
There are several academic institutions working on mercury models; but there has been feedback from
those involved that they are crude, and many are looking for ways to improve. Therefore supporting
such an effort as expressed here is synonymous with contribution to global improvement of knowledge
on mercury transport, fate and exposure, and enhanced capability to assess risk to humans. Of equal
importance, it also helps the UNEP Mercury Partnership improve the quality of their global assessments,
and keeps them linked organically to an even broader swathe of the research community. It permits
monitoring of impact of the Convention and GEF interventions as well, and also closes the gap between
human and ecotoxicological risk assessment, even as it provides a larger volume of data of known
quality to researchers. Finally, such an effort supports the idea from the UNEP Mercury Partnership
Advisory Group that any furthering of knowledge in this area be carried out within the preexisting
Partnership on Fate and Transport, Chaired by Nicola Pirrone, and Co-chaired by David Evers.
5
http://www.setac.org/ : SETAC is a “not-for-profit, global professional organization comprised of some 6,000 individual
members and institutions from academia, business and government. Since 1979, the Society has provided a forum where
scientists, managers and other professionals exchange information and ideas on the study, analysis and solution of
environmental problems, the management and regulation of natural resources, research and development, and environmental
education.”. It is implemented worldwide.