Daily Archives: January 18, 2013

Scientist on the Scene: Advice for Working at the Boundary of Science and Policy from Dr. David Evers

Leave a reply

by Alice Alpert and Danya Rumore

Amid observing and analyzing the INC5 negotiations, one question that seems to be on many of our MIT team members’ minds is “As scientists and academics, what is our role in influencing policy and decision-making?” More specifically, where does the line between science and advocacy lie, and how should a scientist who cares about a given issue—like mercury—interact (or not) with the policy realm?

Looking for answers, a couple of us cornered Dr. David Evers after an INC5 side session on “Global Mercury Hotspots.” Hosted by David and his colleagues at the Biodiversity Research Institute (BRI) and IPEN, the side session shared with decision-makers the findings of a recent scientific report, available here, which found high levels of mercury contamination in marine and freshwater ecosystems around the world.

David, the Executive Director of BRI, is an excellent example of a scientist who, through his work, seeks to work at the boundary between science and policy.

Explaining his work, David is quick to say, “I try very hard to be that unbiased scientist that goes about getting data in an unbiased way.” Trained as a conservation biologist, he readily acknowledges that he has a fundamental interest in the sustainability of human interactions with ecosystems. As a result, he has chosen to research mercury, a compound that is harmful to ecosystems and human health. However, he makes clear, he does not have a policy objective in mind when he formulates his research questions. Nor does a particular policy objective drive his research.

Instead, David says, his goal is to provide policy makers with the best possible information about mercury and its impacts on ecosystems; it is the decision-makers’ job to translate this information into the best possible policy, whatever that may be.

For example, one of David’s recent projects brought together a team of mercury researchers with the goal of compiling scientific findings about mercury in the northeast region of the US. The team then translated these scientific findings into a language and format that is easy for policy makers to fully understand, and shared this information with Congressional staffers and federal agencies in Washington, DC.

In contrast to a policy-advocate, David doesn’t focus on whether the scientific information he is presenting supports a certain policy objective. Nor does he interpret what his findings should mean for policy and decision-making.  “I’m an advocate for scientific information,” not a policy advocate, he explains. And while he thinks that the scientific findings presented during his Global Mercury Hotspots presentation are reason for concern, he adds that, here at the INC5, “I’m not advocating, it’s strange to say, for a stronger mercury policy.”

One concern many members of our MIT team struggle with is how to influence the world of policy with our research without compromising our integrity as unbiased scientists and academics. David recognizes this concern, but says that he feels that the boundary between science-advocate and policy-advocate is quite clear. As long as you’re only advocating for the use of good information in decision-making, you haven’t compromised your position as a credible source of unbiased information. Once you begin to let policy objectives direct your research or start advocating for specific policies, however, you’ve crossed the line into policy advocacy. And, he adds, “there’s no going back.”

So what’s his advice for academic “youngsters”, like us, who are interested in the intersection of science and policy?

First off, don’t be afraid to walk the line between science and policy, David says, just make sure to push for good science and focus on making this information readily available and understandable, rather than advocating for particular policies or regulations.

Second, you don’t need to know everything, and you can’t be an expert in everything. When your work crosses over into a discipline, like public health, that you don’t know well, bring in colleagues to help.

Third, as a scientific expert, people will often corner you to ask what you think the policy implications of your research are; when you respond, keep your opinion out of it and make clear that you are simply interpreting the data you have gathered.

Finally, he says, many scientists fear the media, because they are afraid that the media will misinterpret or skew their research and findings. David says that, when possible, it is preferable to work with journalists that you know and trust. But it’s important to get your findings into the public conversation, so don’t shy away from the media.

To learn more about working at the intersection of science and policy, read Amanda Giang’s Scientist on the Scene profile of Dr. Celia Chen and follow our blog and twitter (@MITmercury) as we report on the final day of the INC5 mercury negotiations.

Issue Overview: Artisanal and Small-Scale Gold Mining

2 Replies

by Mark Staples and Danya Rumore

Throughout much of the world, artisanal and small-scale gold mining (ASGM) provides subsistence livelihoods for more than 15 million people and produces up to 30% of the world’s mined gold.

Unfortunately, the sector relies heavily on mercury as a critical part of their gold extraction process. Mercury is added to ore to form a mercury-gold amalgam. This amalgam is then burned, causing the mercury to vaporize and leaving behind pure gold. While an effective process—one that has been in practice since at least 1000 CE— this type of mining leads to the direct exposure of miners to mercury, often with severe health impacts. ASGM is also responsible for the direct release of mercury into the environment and, according to the recently released Global Mercury Assessment 2013, small-scale gold mining is currently the largest human-caused source of mercury emissions. Additionally, ASGM drives a black market in mercury trade—check out Mark Staples’ blog on the illicit mercury trade to learn more about this.

Some nations, such as China, have already banned ASGM practices. Practically, however, these bans are difficult to implement. ASGM occurs almost entirely in the “informal section”—i.e., not as part of regulated industry—throughout the world, making it hard to monitor and control. As a result, the use of mercury in small-scale mining operations still occurs in nations that have implemented ASGM bans.

Despite the challenges associated with monitoring and regulating ASGM, acting to limit this major source of mercury releases is critical and possible. Accordingly, ASGM has attracted significant attention at INC5. The debate around article 9, which addresses ASGM issues, has focused on whether the import and export of mercury will be allowed for ASGM purposes, and if a phase-out date for ASGM will be introduced. In the next 24 hours, these are issues that will likely be resolved in balance with other supply and trade and products and processes issues. However, for now, it remains to be seen what will be decided.

Track us on twitter @markdstaples and @DanyaRumore to see what the negotiators decide on this critical issue!

Where in the World is Mercury? Part 2: Ocean and Fish

Leave a reply

By: Noelle Selin

Our previous posts have addressed mercury in the atmosphere, global reservoirs such as oceans and soils, fish and human hair. Since oceans and fish are so important to global mercury exposure, I thought it would be useful to highlight sources of more information about mercury concentrations there. Two recent major studies have been released looking at the mercury problem in aquatic systems. Both of these are being presented at INC-5.

The Biodiversity Research Institute and IPEN, a non-governmental organization involved in the negotiations, have collected worldwide data on so-called “hotspots” of mercury concentrations in fish and human hair samples. The report, available here, found that mercury contamination is ubiquitous in marine and freshwater systems along the world. The report compares fish mercury concentrations from around the world to U.S. EPA human health advisory guidelines. Depending on the country, between 43 to 100% of fish sampled exceeded guidelines; in Japan and Uruguay, concentrations were so high that no consumption was recommended. These guidelines are for one fish mean per month.

From BRI-IPEN report: % of fish samples above health thresholds

Look for Alice Alpert’s interview with Biodiversity Research Institute’s David Evers, who’s here in Geneva, to be posted soon on our blog.

Another key report came out of the Coastal and Marine Mercury Ecosystem Research Collaborative (C-MERC), brought together by the Toxic Metals Superfund Research Program at Dartmouth College. The report analyzed and synthesized the current science on mercury sources  in seafood, and explored ecosystem responses to potential emissions controls.

The report found that mercury pollution is on the rise. In response to emissions controls, methylmercury in open ocean fish would only begin to decrease within several years to decades, while fish in coastal systems could respond over many decades to centuries. In other words, these effects are very long lasting. An interview with Celia Chen, who co-authored the report, was conducted here at INC-5 by Amanda Giang and is posted below.

Scientist on the Scene: A Profile of Dr. Celia Chen

Leave a reply

Celia Chenby Amanda Giang

We’re certainly not the only science-folk at INC5. Over the course of the week, we’ve had the opportunity to meet many others who are here to support the negotiation in one way or another. Between sessions, I had the chance to catch up with one of them, Dr. Celia Chen, to find out a little more about why she’s here at the negotiations and what advice she has for us aspiring science-policy wonks.

Celia works in the Department of Biology at Dartmouth College, as part of the Toxic Metals Superfund Research Program. The program, which is funded by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), looks at how mercury and arsenic in the environment affect ecosystem and human health. Within the program, she spends her time “wearing two different hats,” she says, one as a traditional eco-toxicologist and principal investigator for a project on the fate of metals in aquatic food webs, and a second as the principal investigator of research translation. “Translation is part of the mandate NIEHS gives for Superfund research,” Celia explains. Not only are researchers within these programs expected to clarify the science of contamination, but they’re also expected to make sure that their findings are communicated—or translated—to stakeholders (i.e., the people who can use or are directly affected by the findings), be they regulators from the EPA and FDA, or local food cooperatives.

She sees this research translation as a crucial role that scientists must play in policy-making forums. “We need to take what we know about the science and put it in a language that is accessible to policy makers,” she argues. Too often, critical scientific knowledge remains locked up in scientific publications, which, while they are the bread-and-butter of professional research, don’t always penetrate into policy circles. Celia feels that it is the responsibility of scientists to put their work in a form that resonates with—and is useful to—those in decision-making positions, from consumers making choices about their personal fish consumption, to negotiators working at an international scale. In fact, that’s why she’s attending the mercury negotiations. In 2010, the Toxic Metals Superfund Research Program created the Coastal and Marine Mercury Ecosystem Research Collaborative (C-MERC) to synthesize current knowledge on the environmental health impacts of mercury in a policy relevant way. Celia is attending INC5 to share the results of this project: the Sources to Seafood report.

“We tried to ask stakeholders first what they needed to know,” describes Celia. “The timing of [the Sources to Seafood report] was on purpose.”

Sources to Seafood was published on the tail of a domestic regulation in the US for mercury from coal-fired power plants, and directly before the final negotiating session for a global treaty on mercury. A key question that policy makers for both domestic and international regulation want clarified is how controlling different sources of mercury emissions and releases will actually affect human exposure. This question is important for both designing new policy and evaluating existing ones.

“When we began this work, most of the research done on mercury in the environment was done in freshwater systems, not marine. But most people are exposed to methylmercury through marine seafood,” Chen says. The report estimates that, for most of the US population, 85% of methylmercury exposure comes from marine fish. What are the sources of mercury that affect different marine and estuarine—that is, ocean and coastal—systems, from which fish are harvested? How do these sources affect human exposure? Researchers in biogeochemistry, food web dynamics, and health were all trying to answer different parts of these questions, but these different threads weren’t being woven together into a comprehensive picture.

“The most novel part of [the Sources to Seafood report],” Celia argues, is its interdisciplinary and cross-scale approach. “There are still many gaps and not enough data,” she says, but by synthesizing many different studies from different fields, a few conclusions can be drawn.

The most important point from the Sources to Seafood report that needs to be conveyed to decision-makers, Celia highlights, is that for each ocean system, critical sources of mercury may be different—some systems are most affected by atmospheric deposition, while others are most affected by inputs from rivers. Will the draft text on emissions and releases reflect these nuances? Celia hopes that reports like Sources to Seafood might help ensure that it does.

As for students interested in marine science-policy, Celia recommends that they consider the Sea Grant Knauss Fellowships, which match students with “host” policy makers in the executive and legislative branches of the US government in Washington D.C. These fellowships are open to any student, regardless of citizenship, enrolled in a graduate program at a US university that has a Sea Grant program.

For those interested in how the final treaty shapes up, keep following developments here on our blog and via twitter @amandagiang and @MITmercury.

How much would it cost an NGO to attend INC5?

4 Replies

By: Philip Wolfe

Let’s say you run a small, mercury-relevant NGO in Washington, DC, and you want to come to the final round of the mercury treaty negotiations at INC5. Let’s also assume you’re bootstrapping here, no big splurges. How much is it going to cost you?

Flight: 700-1100CHF for a roundtrip ticket if you book in advance and are flexible with timing and connections (FareCompare).

Hotel: Single or double occupancy mid-range rooms run 140-240CHF/night (wikitravel).

Getting Around: Free access to public transport comes with a hotel stay, and free public transport is available from the Geneva airport to the hotel. However, with late nights in contact groups, you might need to call a taxi in the evening. Expect to pay 12-20CHF per trip if you are staying in a central location. (numbeo).

Breakfast: Best-case scenario: it’s included with your hotel room. Next best case, you can stop at the Coop or Manor. An apple, a croissant, and a yogurt will run you about 3,50CHF. Add a coffee for another 2CHF. Want a real breakfast? It’ll run you 10,50-16,50CHF on a budget. (lonelyplanet)

Lunch: A medium plate at the convention center is 7CHF (add a side for 3CHF), or expect to pay 15-20CHF at a restaurant or café at places like Café des Art’s or Espresso club (wikitravel). Add another 2-3CHF for a soda or juice. You’ll want another coffee for the afternoon meetings; tack on another 2CHF.

Dinner: A main course, a glass of juice, and a side salad is about 32CHF at Café du Soleil. Brasserie Bagatelle is about 40CHF for a dinner of tartar with fries and a soda, if reviews are to be believed. Fondu at the Bains de Paquis and a drink will run about 27CHF.  Add in a dessert or an appetizer and your looking at 50-60CHF, easily.

Snack: It’s a long day, and you’ll be hungry either in meeting or when you get back to your hotel. Add 3CHF a day for a snack of fruit and a granola bar. Add a bottle of water and make it 5CHF.

On a tight budget, average daily basic living expenses will be around 80CHF. Anything unexpected happens (and don’t forget about ATM fees!), and you’re looking at 110-130CHF minimum daily expenses. If you need to grab a train or want to visit a museum the cost only goes up from there.

TOTAL BUDGET: 3100CHF or $3300 USD (range 2400 – 3900 CHF) per single occupancy person.

Even on a tight budget it is not going to be a cheap trip, and these big costs have big implications. First, NGOs attending the negotiations will have a minimum amount of funding. Second, NGOs attending the negotiations will be heavily invested in an issue. What does this mean for minority groups, especially those groups that are disadvantaged? Also, does the amount of investment required to come to a negotiation lead to an NGO contingency dominated by the most extreme viewpoints? How can we ensure equity and credibility in this process?

Daily Roundup for INC5 Day 5—Thursday, January 18

1 Reply

By: Ellen Czaika

In the plenary evening session, the chair solicited updates from each of the contact groups. The co-chairs reported some progress, although all of them requested further time to continue with the text. Around 7pm, Chair Lugris gave a deadline of 11pm, at which time he scheduled another plenary. At the request of a delegate, he accepted responsibility for compiling a draft text for the preamble.

Global Environmental Facility (GEF) CEO & Chairperson Dr. Naoko Ishii spoke about the willingness of the GEF to work with the resulting convention on mercury. She indicated that the GEF’s average time to approve a mercury related project is 34 days. She also indicated the GEF’s interest in engaging with the private sector in the form of Public Private Partnerships (PPPs), which she indicated goes along with the already strong public sector involvement in mercury issues.

Her remarks may ease the concerns of some delegates who fear that funding and assistance may be difficult to receive in practice. However, funding remains a debated issue, and the financial resources and technical assistance contact group met yesterday after her presentation to articulate broad ideas about the fund for implementing the convention. After more than 3 hours of open discussion, the co-chairs redrafted the Article. When the full contact group reconvened to evaluate the co-chairs’ text, a general consensus was reached that the funding mechanism should be the GEF, plus additional existing institutions.

However, several parties, including the US and Canada, expressed disappointment that their positions were not reflected in the text, and proposed significant new elements. Additionally, Brazil suggested adding text indicating that funds used for mercury treaty implementation should come from new GEF contributions. This will be untenable to the parties contributing to the GEF, and is being worked out by a select drafting group. Their draft text should be presented to the plenary soon.

In the contract group on selected technical articles, progress is being made, but discussion about Annex D, related to processes containing mercury, and Article 3 on Supply and Trade continued late into the night (or rather, into the early morning). The other articles from the contact group have been given to the legal group for a quick read-through before being presented for approval in today’s plenary.

The financial and technical assistance contact group sent their text to a working group and dissolved the contact group around 11pm. The emission and releases contact group, on the other hand, continued past midnight. Progress was made on the emissions issue, and the group applauded as their Annex F was deemed ready for release (their enthusiasm for progress may have been due to their all nighter the night before). The phrase “in the spirit of cooperation” became a common refrain as the emissions and releases contact group tackled the many brackets left in the article on releases to land and water.

The institutions and implementation group sent a clean text on health aspects to the legal group. This text is precedent-setting, because it specifically recognizes health in an environmental treaty in more than a preventive capacity, and calls for the promotion of activities like identifying vulnerable and affected populations, improving access to treatment, etc. Furthermore, it clarifies the treaty’s linkages to the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO).

In the 11pm plenary, the co-chairs for the contact groups reported on their progress. Chair Lugris  extended the deadline for text until noon today, day 6,  to accommodate the remaining work in the groups.

Working groups are currently presenting on their progress in the plenary session. Follow the discussion via our updates on twitter @MITmercury!

Products and Processes: An Explanation of Positive and Negative Lists

Leave a reply

One of the main issues on the table during the mercury negotiations leading up to INC5 has been how to deal with products and processes containing mercury. In particular, the question of whether to adopt a “negative list” or a “positive list” approach was heavily debated.

So what’s the difference?

  • A negative list approach would mean a ban on mercury use in all products and processes, with the exception of a few agreed upon and listed uses. To remember this, think n = “no mercury use is allowed (possibly with exceptions).”
  • A positive list approach would only ban mercury use in products and process that are explicitly agreed upon and listed. Think p = “list of prohibited products and processes”

The mercury treaty negotiations have separated products and processes into two different annexes: Annex C and Annex D. For Annex C, which addresses mercury-added products, INC5’s contact group on selected technical articles proposes to use what is being called a “hybrid list” approach: basically, 1) they have listed the products that are banned (i.e., a positive list), and all other mercury-containing products are allowed, but 2) products that are in the banned list are allowed when used for certain, very specific uses (such as civilian protection or military uses).

Annex D, which addresses manufacturing processes in which mercury or mercury compounds are used, currently takes a positive list approach: only the processes that are listed are banned, all others are allowed.

While these Annexes currently appear to be settled, a lot can happen in the last hours of the treaty negotiations, and it remains to be seen how exactly products and processes will be regulated by the treaty.

Watch our blog and track us on twitter @lncz and @MITmercury to see how the produces and processes part of the treaty comes together!