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!

Guest Blog: Winning at Win-Win Negotiation

Leave a reply

This is a guest blog from Lawrence Susskind, Ford Professor of Urban and Environmental Planning at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Visiting Professor at Harvard Law School. Professor Susskind specializes in global environmental treaty making and the mediation of public disputes. In this post, reprinted with his permission from his blog “The Consensus Building Approach,” he explains some key lessons for good negotiation, including how to get to a positive overall outcome without compromising your personal (or your nation’s, in the case of INC5) interests.  As we near the final hours of the mercury treaty negotiations, we’ll be watching the delegates’ negotiation techniques and hope to see some of Professor Susskind’s advice at play out on the discussion floor.

by Lawrence Susskind, reprinted from The Consensus Building Approach

I hear the phrase “win-win” all the time. I’m not sure that very many people who use it know what they are talking about. I have a hunch they mistakenly assume that if everyone would just cooperate, then all parties would get what they want. That, of course, is ridiculous. There are almost no negotiations in which everyone can get everything they want. And cooperation or even compromise isn’t the issue.

Thinking Clearly About Win-Win

No one should agree to anything in a negotiation that is worse for them than what they are likely to get if no deal is reached. Roger Fisher and Bill Ury made this point thirty years ago in Getting To Yes. First, figure out what no agreement is most likely going to leave you with, try to generate something (a walk-away) that’s better than that, but when you are in an actual negotiation don’t reject something that’s better than your realistic walk-away, even if it won’t get you everything you’d like to have. Fisher and Ury called this point of comparison, your Best Alternative to the Negotiated Agreement (BATNA). A win-win negotiation is something that gets all sides an outcome better than their BATNA. It doesn’t necessarily get anyone everything that they might want.

Decision analysts (like Howard Raiffa) talk about the same idea in terms of a negotiator’s Reservation Price — the amount that they’ve decided ahead of time they won’t accept “less than” or “pay more than.” Putting aside for a moment that BATNAs and Reservation Prices are sometimes hard to estimate or “know” ahead of time, a win-win negotiation can be thought of as a deal in which all sides “gain” relative to their best estimates of their walk-aways.

Entering the Trading Zone

As many negotiation experts have explained, the beginning of a negotiation is hard because the parties all think they know what they want, all think they know what the other side(s) want and have all worked through with their own constituents what they will and won’t accept. If they then spend all their time pushing their own objectives, sometimes even exaggerating “what they have to have,” and giving arguments in anticipation of what others will say, they probably won’t get a deal. On the other hand, they have no choice but to show their “people” that they are trying hard to be victorious. So, there is a lot of wasted motion, a lot of exaggeration and a lot that’s done for show. At some point, though, usually behind-the-scenes, each party has to re-assess. “Am I going to be able to get something equal to or better than my walk-away.” “I know I can’t get everything I have demanded, but a lot of that was made up anyway.” Most people think that in a bargaining situation, you have to ask for more than what you really want so that you can make concessions and still end up with your real goal. Of course, that strategy can backfire. If your constituency hears you make outrageous opening demands and then you don’t “bring home the bacon,” it may not be possible to back down from those demands without losing face. The fact is, that if everyone were being completely honest about their most important interests (i.e. the things that are important to them in rank order), and they all felt comfortable talking about these items, the negotiators could then engage in productive joint problem-solving to see what sort of trades might (or might not) permit all parties to meet or exceed their realistic walk-aways.

If the opening of a negotiation doesn’t alienate all the parties (because one or more sides has taken an absolutely outrageous stand for tactical reasons and did so in an obnoxious way), they can then enter the “trading zone.” This is the negotiation space in which parties try out various new ideas and possible trades. “Now that I’ve heard what’s really important to you, what if I gave you X, would you give me Y?” Those kinds of linked offers are the key to creating value. If I have something you want very much and it’s not that important to me, and you have something I covet, and it is not crucial to you, when we trade those two things, that creates value. That’s not compromise. We can only do this, however, if we can find our way into the trading zone. Fisher and Ury point out that parties have to be willing to engaging in “inventing without committing” for this to happen. There are other procedures that can also be used to make this work. Once in the trading zone, though, the parties have to do all they can to explore numerous “what-if’s?” to see if they can create value. Then, once they have created all the value they possibly can, the parties need to go back and see if they can put together a “package” that ensures everyone something above their BATNA or their Reservation Price. The process gets more complicated when values or rights are involved and not just interests, but the same Mutual Gains Approach (MGA) can be used even in those situations.

What If the Parties Haven’t Done Their Homework or Aren’t Authorized to Make a “Reasonable” Deal?

The key to win-win negotiation is not compromise, it is getting into the trading zone and creating as much value as possible. If all negotiations involved just two parties and those negotiators didn’t have to report to anyone, the process would not be that difficult. But, most of the time, negotiators have someone else (often a diverse and fractious constituency) to whom they must report, and to whom they are accountable. This makes moving into the trading zone more difficult.

Think about negotiators who represent their county in a multinational treaty negotiation. Each negotiator spends months talking with different agencies and political actors inside their country, trying to reach a delicate balance on what to stress and what to sacrifice when formal multi-country negotiations begin. Then, when the negotiators sit across from each other in the big hall, each reads the script that they worked out so carefully back home. It doesn’t matter if the formal statements that each negotiator gives appear to ignore what previous speakers in the big hall have said. The fact is, that’s exactly what’s happening. The negotiator is playing to his or her home crowd. Any deviation from the pre-prepared script would probably be cause to drag the negotiator home and demand their resignation. But, at night, at the bar, when the country negotiators chat informally, new packages emerge, and new trades are explored. As the end of the two week formal negotiation period is about to draw to a close, the chair of the session hands out a revised version of the treaty text. This is quite different from the one that countries spent the previous six months reviewing. That earlier version was what they considered when they helped to write their opening speech for the big hall. Now, however, the negotiator has to call “home.” (And, in each country home is represented by a different political figure or set of actors.) They have a choice to make (and almost no time to make it). “Do we support the revised version of the treaty that the chair has sprung on the assembly at the last minute?” Yes, or no? There’s no time for further revisions, everyone has return flights scheduled in a few hours. Moreover, in an international treaty negotiation, the chair won’t ask the parties to vote. Rather, he or she will ask, “Do I hear consensus? Do you support the revised version of the proposed treaty?” It is entirely up to the chair whether he or she “hears” consensus. At the point, the country negotiators have the option of signing the document on their way out their door. Then, each negotiator has to go back to their home legislature and seek ratification (in America’s case by a vote of the United States Senate).

Think of the poor negotiator for a country that didn’t do its homework ahead of time, or didn’t give it’s negotiator any room to maneuver. They can’t have much impact on the final outcome because they can’t participate in the discussion of informal trades. Ideally, a negotiator needs to know what his or her country’s most important interests are (and which of many ways of meeting them will be OK). The negotiator may also have instructions to take a strong opening stand, but at the same time be empowered to use whatever informal channels are open to enter the informal trading zone and see what new options can be created. Until the final moments, the negotiator is just exploring “what-if’s.” When the chair produces the final draft of the proposed treaty, the negotiator needs to know who they can call to get a yes or a no (although they must be able to report that they have found a way to ensure that their country’s most important interests have been met).

How Much Can and Should You Do for the Other Side?

There’s nothing more frustrating than trying to negotiate with someone who isn’t prepared (i.e. doesn’t know what their group’s interests really are), isn’t authorized to enter into informal discussions about ways of creating value, and isn’t empowered to commit to anything other than what their group discussed before the negotiations began. If you are sitting at the table (in the big hall) with negotiators who are in one of these three positions, what can and should you do? First, even though it is awfully late in the game, you might encourage the other negotiator to be in touch with his or her group to clarify what their key interests really are. This should take the form of a BATNA or walk-away analysis. (“What are we going to be left with, realistically, if there is no agreement?” Not, what will we demand?) This will help the negotiator avoid the bad mistake of turning down “pretty good” offers. Second, you can construct several “alternative packages” for the negotiator to bring back (quickly) to his or her group. Each should spell out why and how a package will help the group meets in most important interests, and at what cost and with what risks. Third, you can coach the other negotiator a bit, teasing out for them what they might say to their constituents in response to various criticisms or complaints. Of course, if the negotiation is being managed by a neutral party (a mediator or a facilitator), then any participant can have a private conversation with that individual without having to reveal to any other parties how unprepared they really are (or how mixed up their constituency might be).

So, When Should You Compromise?

No negotiating party should ever accept an agreement that is worse for them than no agreement. But, a group may be very uncertain about how to predict what no agreement really means. (“If we don’t reach agreement now, what will happen next and what effects will that have?”) So, they might say yes to something that turns out, in retrospect, to be less desirable for them that having said no. But, no negotiator should ever agree to something that knowingly “hurts” their constituency (i.e is worse than what no agreement held in store for them) just to be liked. Good working relationships (and particularly trust) are not achieved by caving in to pressure. Rather, they are a by-product of all sides acting in what Fisher and Ury would call a “principled way.” And, I would argue that one principle of negotiation is that no one should ever “give away” their interests in the hope of “buying” a good relationship. All that will do, as Fisher and Ury point out, is teach the other parties that the same behavior be expected in the future.

“Good for You, Great for Me”

So, in actuality, a win-win outcome is one that gets all parties more than what no agreement would have guaranteed them. But, that doesn’t mean that all parties “gain the same amount.” I might like an agreement because it get’s me well above my BATNA. You might grudgingly accept my proposed agreement because it gets you more than what you are likely to get if we reach no agreement at all. Win-win agreements do no promise all sides equal or similar gains. They only promise that all sides — because they enter into the trading zone, engage in joint problem-solving, and agree to be realistic, even honest, about their highest priority interests — get an outcome that is better than their most realistic estimate of what they would have ended up with had they walked away with no agreement.

Thus, the way to “win” at “win-win” negotiation is to make sure that you come up with a proposed agreement that is “good” for other side(s) and “great” for you. You can only do this by working hard to uncover and respond to the most important interests of the other parties. Whatever “opening” stand you take (to ensure your “people” that you are fighting hard on their behalf), you have to be able to move from there into the trading zone and function effectively in that “what-iffing” environment. Then, you must have the right mandate from your “side.” That is, you need to have worked out ahead of time a clear understanding of your group’s priority interests. And, you need to know who you can call for authorization to enter into an anticipated agreement at the last minute as long as the package exceeds your group’s realistic estimate of what no agreement means to them.

 

Bioamplification, Bioaccumulation and Bioconcentration

Leave a reply

By: Julie van der Hoop

The confusion between bioamplification, bioaccumulation and bioconcentration is understandable. Yesterday, delegates asked for a clarification and explanation as to how this happens. These terms are not interchangeable, though they are often used as if they were. This post should clarify the situation.

bioaccumulation_graphic

Bioamplification (or biomagnification, as the picture shows) refers to an increase in the concentration of a substance as you move up the food chain. This often occurs because the pollutant is persistent, meaning that it cannot be, or is very slowly, broken down by natural processes. These persistent pollutants are transferred up the food chain faster than they are broken down or excreted.

In contrast, bioaccumulation occurs within an organism, where a concentration of a substance builds up in the tissues and is absorbed faster than it is removed. Bioaccumulation often occurs in two ways, simultaneously: by eating contaminated food, and by absorption directly from water. This second case is specifically referred to as bioconcentration.

So, what have we learned? Bioconcentration and bioaccumulation happen within an organism, but biomagnification occurs across levels of the food chain. An example: phytoplankton and other microscopic organisms take up methylmercury and then retain it in their tissues. Here, mercury bioaccumulation is occurring: mercury concentrations are higher in the organisms than it is in the surrounding environment. As animals eat these smaller organisms, they receive their prey’s mercury burden. Because of this, animals that are higher in the food chain have higher levels of mercury than they would have due to regular exposure. With increasing trophic level, mercury levels are amplified.

The INC5 Playlist…Because Every UN Conference Needs a Soundtrack

3 Replies

by Danya Rumore

It’s Day 5, and we’re in what could be considered the “meat and potatoes” of the INC5 mercury treaty negotiations. With only one—or possibly two—days to go, the pressure is on.

Perhaps this is why the UNEP Convention gods (or whoever decides these things) chose to play Queen’s “Under Pressure” over the loudspeakers at the end of Tuesday’s afternoon plenary session. A stark contrast to the relatively quiet dispersal that often follows the plenary sessions, the sudden blast of music startled many of us MITers out of our late afternoon stupor. And as we filed out of the plenary room—amused by the not-so-subtle musical message—we had an epiphany: INC5 definitely needs a playlist.

This conclusion has become even more obvious throughout the negotiation proceedings of the last two days: “Under Pressure” has been played repeatedly before and after the plenary sessions.  It seems that UNEP either has yet to download iTunes or they’re seriously in need of some musical inspiration.

Thankfully, we’re here to help. Who better to consult on music than a team of nerdy MIT PhD and Masters students?

So here it is: our crowd-sourced recommendations for the INC5 negotiation’s playlist, as well as some guidance for the appropriate moments in which they should be played.

Enjoy!

The INC5 Playlist:

  1. “Under Pressure” by Queen—as the UNEP has figured out, this song is basically always appropriate in a final treaty negotiation. The Freddie Mercury connection is also amusing.
  2. “Running on Empty” by Jackson Brown—to be played during sessions going later than 11:00pm, particularly those starting after 11:00pm.
  3. “We Can Work It Out” by the Beatles—to be played at the beginning of each contact group, particularly those that have been stuck on the same issues for multiple sessions.
  4. “Communication Breakdown” by Led Zeppelin—to be played whenever one party has stated the same point 3 or more times.
  5. “You Can’t Always Get What You Want” by the Rolling Stones—to be played as a reminder that, well, you can’t always get what you want.
  6. “I Heard It through the Grapevine” by Creedence Clearwater Revival—to be played in the interpreters’ booth (look for Julie van der Hoop’s upcoming blog on this topic, you’ll see what we mean!)
  7. “Fernando” by ABBA—to show our fondness for INC5 Chair Fernando Lugris
  8. “If I Had a Million Dollars” by Barenaked Ladies—to be played during all financial assistant discussions.
  9. “Heat of the Moment” by Asia—to be played as the negotiations get intense; it’s amazing what happens when things get intense.
  10. “The Final Countdown” by Europe—to be played during the last 24 hours of the negotiation.
  11. If an agreement is reached: “Chariots of Fire” by Vangelis –triumphant celebration!  If not:  “Disappointment” by the Cranberries—you get the message.

Bonus Tracks

Just in case no agreement is reached by the end of the day on Friday and we need a little extra musical inspiration:

  1. “Spectacles” by Jenna Lindbo—to inspire some cooperation (the refrain is “”Do you wonder what things look like in other people’s eyes? I’ll take off my spectacles and give yours a try. You should put on mine. I think you might be surprised to see what the world looks like through someone else’s eyes”)
  2. “Mercury Poisoning” by Graham Parker and the Rumour—to motivate some action on a really important issue.
  3. “Running out of Time” by Hot Hot Heat— to remind the delegates that, well, they’re running out of time.

What else should be on the INC5 playlist? If you’ve got any ideas for other tunes to include, post a comment below and let us know!