![contributing to significant local and global releases. This
report will address key mercury issues in each of the fol-
lowing sections.
Reasons for concern:
• Mercury and mercury-containing compounds are
toxic for humans and ecosystems.
• Although mercury is a naturally occurring heavy
metal element, and has always been present in the
environment, human activity has increased mo-
bilized mercury by a factor of three to five. Once
mobilized, mercury persists, cycling for centuries to
millennia until it is sequestered in deep ocean sedi-
www.annualreviews.org Biogeochemical Cycling of Mercury C-
1
Figure 1
Global biogeochemical cycle for mercury. Natural
(preindustrial) �uxes [megagrams (Mg) year –1] and
inventories, in Mg, are noted in
black. Anthropogenic contributions are in red. Natural �uxes
augmented by anthropogenic activities are noted by red-and-
black dot-
ted lines. Modi�ed from Selin et al. (30). A mean enrichment
factor of three between the preindustrial and present-day
mercury dep-
osition, based on remote sediment cores, is used as a constraint.
La
n
d](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/tableofcontentsintroductionpurposescopeissue1i-230122112311-a1a04302/85/Table-of-Contents-Introduction-Purpose-Scope-Issue-1-I-docx-3-320.jpg)
Table of Contents Introduction, Purpose & Scope Issue 1 I.docx
- 1. Table of Contents Introduction, Purpose & Scope Issue 1: Institutional Form for Future Action Issue 2: Atmospheric Emissions Issue 3: Demand for Mercury Used in Products & Processes Issue 4: Artisanal and Small-scale Gold Mining Conclusion, Data Gaps & References International Mercury Assessment United Nations Environment Programme1 Hg 1 This report is part of The Mercury Game, 2011, a negotiation simulation available at mit.edu/mercurygame. Portions of this assessment are di- rectly adapted from The Global Mercury Assessment, UNEP Chemical Branch 2002, Summary of supply, trade and demand information on mercury, UNEP Chemicals Branch 2006, The Global Atmospheric Mercury Assessment, UNEP Chemicals Branch 2008, Technical Background Report to the Global Atmospheric Mercury Assessment, UNEP Chemicals Branch 2008 and Arctic Pollution 2011, Arctic Monitoring Assessment Protocol 2011. These reports are closely adapted in order to preserve their language and form. The representation of mercury science is realistic and as up to date as possible for the purpose of the simulation. All errors are the authors own. This report does not represent the views of UNEP
- 2. and is fictionalized. Copyright © 2011 Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Not for commercial use. Introduction, Purpose & Scope Introduction This report is the Secretariat’s response to the United Nations Environment Program’s (UNEP) Governing Council, who requested UNEP undertake a global assessment of mercury and mercury compounds. The report provides a global overview of scientific informa- tion on the most important mercury issues, drawing on information primarily from the scientific literature. Na- tional governments, intergovernmental and nongovern- mental organizations, and private sector groups have also submitted their own assessments and reports to be incorporated into the assessment. Given that many published scientific assessments focus on devloping countries, an explicit effort was made here to include information on mercury impacts relevant to developing countries. Sources of mercury: Mercury is released from a variety sources, both natural and anthropogenic (see Figure 1). Natural emissions sources include volcanoes, geothermal vents and land emissions from areas naturally rich in mercury. Anthro- pogenic releases include fossil fuel combustion, biomass combustion, mining and industrial processes. Mercury is also found in various commercial and consumer products, and is released to the environment when those waste products are incinerated. Finally, artisanal and small-scale gold mining (ASGM) employs mercury,
- 3. contributing to significant local and global releases. This report will address key mercury issues in each of the fol- lowing sections. Reasons for concern: • Mercury and mercury-containing compounds are toxic for humans and ecosystems. • Although mercury is a naturally occurring heavy metal element, and has always been present in the environment, human activity has increased mo- bilized mercury by a factor of three to five. Once mobilized, mercury persists, cycling for centuries to millennia until it is sequestered in deep ocean sedi- www.annualreviews.org Biogeochemical Cycling of Mercury C- 1 Figure 1 Global biogeochemical cycle for mercury. Natural (preindustrial) �uxes [megagrams (Mg) year –1] and inventories, in Mg, are noted in black. Anthropogenic contributions are in red. Natural �uxes augmented by anthropogenic activities are noted by red-and- black dot- ted lines. Modi�ed from Selin et al. (30). A mean enrichment factor of three between the preindustrial and present-day mercury dep- osition, based on remote sediment cores, is used as a constraint. La n d
- 10. 0 0 Sediment: 3 × 1011Sediment: 3 × 1011 SSurfrfacacee ococeaean:n: 2 2505000 ++ 45450000 DeDeepep o oceceanan:: 3 30000 0,00000 ++ 505050 00,0000000 6 1 0 0 + 0 + 2 0 2 0 1 2 0 0 + 0
- 11. + + 2 0 22 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 + 40 + 160 1 6 0 0 + 2 0 0
- 12. 2 1 0 0 + 2 0 0 0 5 0 0 + 1 0 0 InInveventntororieiess inin M Mgg Fluxes in Mg Inventories in Mg Fluxes in Mg year–1 ++ 00.1515 × × 1 100666Soil: 1 × 106 + 0.15 × 106 + 160 G e
- 14. 0 Surface ocean: 2500 + 4500 Deep ocean: 300,000 + 50,000 Atmosphere: 2050 + 3550Atmosphere: 2050 + 3550 by M A S S A C H U S E T T S I N S T IT
- 16. er so na l u se o nl y. Figure 1. The Mercury Cycle (1) ments (1). • Mercury transports by air and water. In its gaseous elemen- tal form, mercury has a long atmospheric lifetime of 6 to 18 months, allowing the ele- ment to be transported globally. Global transport is a key reason prompting international coop- eration. • Once mercury is deposited from the atmosphere, mercury can be transformed, primarily by microbial action, into meth- ylmercury. Methylmercury is highly toxic and bioavailable, increasing in concentrations at higher levels in food webs. • Human exposure to mercury occurs by eating fish or through
- 17. occupational hazards. At high exposure levels, methylmercury is toxic. At lower exposure lev- els, methylmercury is associated with cognitive developmental delays in children and may be associated with heart attacks. . 1 1 Institutional Form for Future Action Issue 1. Introduction The question of whether mercury is a global problem, and therefore whether actions should be taken at the global level, largely concerns exposure mechanisms, toxicity, health impacts and environmental impacts. This section will address each issue in turn, in an attempt to provide the negotiating parties adequate information on the reasons for international action. 1.1 What are mercury’s main human exposure pathways? In order for mercury to be readily bioavailable, sulfate or iron-reducing bacteria can convert it to methyl- mercury (MeHg) under anaerobic conditions. Meth- ylmercury is formed in aquatic ecosystems, primarily freshwater ecosystems including wetlands (Figure 2). In marine ecosystems, the exact methlyation mechanisms and the rates of methylation are unknown (2).
- 18. Once mercury is converted to methylmercury, it is highly toxic and can bioaccumulate up the food chain, particularly in fish. MeHg can be present in predato- ry fish at 1,000,000 times the background level (3). Since these fish travel long distances, bioaccumulation also contributes to global mercury transport. Most human populations are exposed to meth- ylmercury primarily through eating fish, with heightened exposure from eating fish at higher trophic levels. Populations that eat marine mam- mals, particularly whale and seals, also increase their exposure (for a summary, see AMAP 2011). Additional exposure occurs through mercury- containing skin-lightening creams, use in medicines and rituals and in dental products. Workers may be at an elevated risk of exposure to mercury in chlor-alkali plants, mercury mines, dental clinics and small-scale gold mines. 1.2 What are mercury’s health impacts and toxicity? All mercury-containing compounds are readily passable through the placental and the blood-brain barrier. Mer- cury’s toxicity depends on its chemical form; the same exposure to elemental mercury and organic mercury compounds can produce different symptoms in the same patient. It is well known that mercury is toxic at high levels and that methylmercury exposure poses the most severe risks. The developing nervous system is highly sensitive to methylmercury. For these reasons, exposure during
- 19. pregnancy and infancy are of the highest concern. Exposure during fetal development and childhood may create long-term cognitive developmental impacts af- fecting language, attention and memory (5). Mercury may also raise the risk for cardiovascular disease, although the epidemiological effects are uncer- tain. A recent review paper conducted by scientists for the US EPA found that methylmercury exposures may increase the likelihood of heart attacks. This relation- ship was demonstrated with moderate evidence for a number of risk factors, and expert scientists state the likelihood of a relationship between MeHg and heart attacks is between 45 to 80% (6). Figure 2. Mercury Cycling in a Lake and Watershed (3) 2 At very high exposure levels, methylmercury can cause Minamata disease, first observed in Japan in the 1950s. This neurophysiological disorder leads to atrophy in the brain, tremors, loss of percep- tion, major impairments in functioning and, in severe cases, death (7, 8). For those exposed in the womb, with congenital Minamata disease, symp- toms are extreme, resembling cerebral palsy with deafness and mental retardation (9) (Figure 3). In Minamata, exposure occurred because mer- cury-containing effluent was discharged directly into the bay, where it bioaccumulated in fish; when the community ate this fish, they became sick. Similarly, in Canada in the 1970s, several
- 20. Northern Ontario aboriginal communities were exposed to high levels of mercury because chlor- alkali plants were discharging mercury-containing ef- fluent into a river system (10). A third case occurred in Iraq in the 1970s when MeHg was sprayed on seed as a fungicide, resulting in mass poisoning when people ate the seed (8). For a summary of the Iraq and Japanese cases, see Table 1. Methylmercury can also have adverse effects at concen- trations lower than those seen in the poisoning inci- dents listed in Table 1. Three large epidemiological studies were undertaken in the Faroe Islands, Sey- chelles and New Zealand to examine the effects of long-term chronic exposure to mercury for children. These studies provide evidence that methylmercury exposure in the womb creates cognitive deficits in chil- dren, even at concentrations from 10-20% of observed effect levels in adults (5, 13). The results are summa- rized in Table 2 (next page). • The Faroe Island study, which is the most widely accepted figure for non-lethal neurodevelopmental effects, sets the benchmark dose level at 10 μg/g total mercury in maternal hair (5, 14, 15). • The Seychelles study in contrast found no devel- opmental effects associated with exposure levels at an average of 7 μg/g total mercury in maternal hair (16, 17). • The New Zealand study found an association between maternal hair concentrations in MeHg and childrens’ test scores, provided one outlier was omitted from the data. This study put the lowest benchmark dose level between 7.4 to 10 μg/g (18)
- 21. As reference, the US EPA reference dose (RfD), the maximum acceptable oral dose of a toxin, is 0.1 μg/ kg body weight per day, corresponding to 5.8 μg/L in blood or 11 μg/g in maternal hair (19). The mean hair mercury level in the United States in 2000 was 0.12 μg/g in children, 0.20 μg/g in women and 0.38 μg/g in women who frequently consumed fish (19); this study also found 8% of women of childbearing age had mercury con- centrations exceeding the US RfD (19; Table 3). However, traditional diets within some Arctic and indig- enous populations put these popula- tions at greater risk of high mercury exposure (4, 20). Figure 3. Congenital Minamata Disease Table 1. Acute Methylmercury Cases Case Hair Sample Exposure Level Minamata, All patients with health effects 2 - 705 μg/g (7) Minamata, Congenital cases 5 - 110 μg/g (7) Minamata, Mother’s hair (5-8 years after birth) 1 - 191 μg/g (7) Iraq, Congenital cases Iraq, Congenital cases (reanalysis)
- 22. >10 μg/g (11) >80 μg/g (12) Iraq, Severe effects1 125-1250 μg/g (8) Iraq, Death1 750-1250 μg/g (8) 1 These values were calculated using a hair to blood mercury conversion of 250 (38). 3 • In bird species, mercury can create adverse effects on reproduction with egg concentrations of Hg as low as 0.05 to 2.0 mg/kg (wet weight) (13). • Mercury levels in many Arctic species (beluga, ringed seal, polar bears, birds of prey) continue to rise, despite reduced or stabilized levels in global mercury (4). This is concerning since Arctic species face multiple stressors, including climate change. Finally climate change, with effects including increased flooding in areas of existing rainfall and warmer aver- age temperatures, may increase the methylation process (13). This in turn could increase bioaccumulation of MeHg in ecosystems, and eventually, exposure through human diets (4). 1.3 What are mercury’s environmental impacts? Mercury harms ecosystems through bioaccumulation in individual organisms and then biomagnifications along the food chain. Concentrations are lowest in smaller, non-predatory fish and increase dramatically at higher trophic levels in the food chain.
- 23. Animals at the top of the aquatic food web, includ- ing seabirds, seals, otters and whales, are most at risk for mercury-related health impacts. Additional factors affecting population exposures include the population’s location and habitat use (4). Concentrations tend to increase with the organism’s age, potentially affecting population dynamics. As a central nervous system toxin, methylmercury can harm wildlife, particularly gestating animals. Inorganic mercury harms animals’ kidneys and reproductive systems. Table 2. Epidemiological Studies Faroe Islands Seychelles New Zealand Average MeHg concentration in maternal hair 3 μg/g 7 μg/g 20 μg/g or less (excluding outlier) Benchmark Dose Level (BMDL) - 10% 10 μg/g No effect found 7.4 - 10 μg/g 4 Benchmark Dose Level (BMDL) is the concentration at which an increase (e.g. a 10% increase) in an observed adverse effect (e.g. an abnormal test scores)
- 24. occurs above the background level or population average. The BMDL is the statistical lower bound, on a 95% confidence interval, on this concentration. For mercury, the BMDL can be intepreted as the concentration at which a 10% increase in likelihood of an abnormal test score or another adverse effect is observed. Table 3. Mean and Selected Percentiles of Hair Mercury Concentrations for Children (1-6 years) and Women (16-49 years) in µg/g in the US, 1999 (19, 21) Selected Percentiles Hair Hg Number Mean 10th 90th 95th Children 838 0.22 μg/g 0.03 μg/g 0.41 μg/g 0.65 μg/g Women 1726 0.47 μg/g 0.04 μg/g 1.11 μg/g 1.73 μg/g 2 Atmospheric Emissions 2.1 What is the scale of atmospheric emissions? Estimating human and natural mercury emissions, including their relative contributions, is a difficult task (for a review of the literature, see Table 1 in Selin 2009 and Pacyna et al. 2010). • In 2005, global anthropogenic emissions to the atmosphere were estimated to be 1930 tonnes (range 1230–2890 tonnes). • In 2005, natural emissions were estimated to be within the same order of magnitude as anthro- pogenic emissions, considering ocean emissions
- 25. (400–1300 tonnes per year) and land emissions (500–1000 tonnes per year). Combined, nau- tral emissions were estimated between 900-2300 tonnes. • Re-emissions of previously mobilized mercury add an additional 1800–4800 tonnes per year. Since these re-emissions are likely in the same propor- tion as the initial emissions, half of these re-emis- sions can be considered of anthropogenic origin and the other half natural. Using data from lake sediment cores, it is estimted that current mercury depo- sition is three to five times above pre- industrial levels (1). In summary, anthropogenic emis- sions, natural emissions and re-emis- sions each contribute approximately one-third of total annual emissions (22-25; Figure 4). Notably, atmospheric mercury emis- sions are believed to have remained relatively constant between 1990 and 2005, although the location of emis- sions has shifted significantly (22, 25, 26; Figure 10). 2.2 What is the current state of emissions inventories? Emissions inventories are available from 2005 with some countries reporting data. However, many coun- tries lack data on current or past mercury emissions.
- 26. Where information is lacking, models have been used to estimate total anthropogenic mercury emis- sions. • Currently, Asia accounts for ~67% of mercury emissions (Figure 5). • Monitoring stations are not well distributed glob- ally, leading to significant data gaps (Figure 8). • Overall, mercury emissions have remained stable since 1990, with some decline in the EU and USA as a result of regulations, and some amplifica- tion in Asia (22) (Figure 10). Emissions estimates associated with products, disposal and artisanal and small-scale gold mining (ASGM) are now included in this atmospheric emissions inventory, although these figures are relatively uncertain. Figure 4. Natural, Anthropogenic and Re-emissions Source: Mercury Fate and Transport in the Global Atmosphere (Springer, 2009) 5 • Cement production, mining, combustion of other fossil fuels, iron and steel processing also contrib- ute to unintentional mercury releases. Waste treat- ment contributes to emissions through incinera- tion of municipal, medical and hazardous wastes and cremation (dental amalgams). • Mercury is released from intentional use and extraction including mercury mining, artisanal and small-scale gold and silver mining (ASGM),
- 27. chlor-alkali production, production of mercu- ry-containing products, and waste treatment. • There is a range of uncertainty for emissions from all sources (Figures 6 & 7). Figure 6. Uncertainty Factors for Hg Emissions (25) 2.3 What are the sources of atmospheric emissions? Emissions are often subdivided into unintentional and intentional releases (see Figures 5, 6 & 7). • Coal-fired power production, an unintentional release, is the single largest global source of atmo- spheric mercury emissions, accounting for ap- proximately 45% of the total quantified atmospheric emissions from anthropogenic sources (23, 25). Coal-plants emit mercury in its elemental and diva- lent forms, and also in association with particulate matter, with implications for global transport. Figure 5. Anthropogenic Mercury Emissions, 2005 5 6 • Anthropogenic sources also emit mercury in its di- valent form (Hg(II)) and associated with particu- late matter (Hg(P)). • In contrast to Hg(0), Hg(II) and Hg(P) have much shorter lifetimes in the atmosphere, on the order of days to weeks. As a result they do
- 28. not tend to be transported long distances, and instead contribute to local and regional pollu- tion. Hg(II) and Hg(P) are removed, incidentally, through conventional scrubber technology on power plants. Elemental mercury emissions transport over long dis- tances via atmospheric and oceanic processes. For this reason, remote areas may have mercury concentra- 2.4 How is mercury transported in the atmosphere? Mercury exists in a variety of forms in the atmosphere, which affects the distance it transports: • In the atmosphere, mercury exists most abundantly in its gaseous elemental form, Hg(0). Elemental mercury is emitted by natural sources and anthro- pogenic sources, including coal power plants. • Elemental mercury persists in the atmosphere between 0.5 and 1.5 years, allowing it to trans- port globally (25). Through reactions, elemental mercury is often converted into divalent mercury, which is readily deposited out of the atmosphere and into ecosystems. Figure 8. Atmospheric Mercury Monitoring Stations (25) Figure 7. Range in Emissions Estimates by Sector, 2005 (25) 0 200
- 29. 400 600 800 1000 1200 fossil fuel combustion metal production large scale gold mining ASGM cement production chlor-alkali industry waste dental amalgam (cremation) E m is si on s
- 30. es ti m at es i n t on n es Range in sectoral emissions estimates 7 tions three to five times above preindustrial levels, despite limited local emissions. In areas with high levels of local emissions, mercury concentrations may be elevated 10 times or more above baseline, largely due to divalent and particulate mercury emissions (27). However, while long range transport is important, there are locations where Hg(0) is easily transformed into Hg(II) and rapidly deposited. In these locations, regional inputs are more important than global inputs leading to local hotspots of mercury accumulation
- 31. (28). Mercury may have disproportionate effects on the Arctic, which is particularly noteworthy given the Arctic does not emit significant amounts of mercury. The Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme has released detailed information on mercury in the Arctic: • Mercury arrives in the Arctic via long-range environ- mental transport. Models estimate most natural deposition in the Arctic originates from the ocean while most anthropogen- ic deposition originates from East Asia (Figure 9). • Traditional diets within some Arctic populations put these populations at greater risk to high mer- cury exposure (4, 20). • Arctic ecosystems may play an important role acting as a global sink for mer- cury, through Atmospheric Mercury Depletion Events (AMDEs). However, much of this mercury is rapidly re-volatilized; for this rea- son, its importance of these events to Arctic foodwebs remains unclear.
- 32. Figure 10. Regional Mercury Emissions Trends, 1990-2005 (25) Figure 9. Model Estimates for Emissions Contributions to Arctic Deposition by Region (4) 7 8 Although scientific research suggests mercury concentrations in ecosystems and fisheries should decline with reduced mercury emissions, the timing and extent of the ecosystem response is uncertain. The effect mercury abatement has on methylation rates in ecosystems is particularly important for the ongoing global negotiations on mercury. One study, which added enriched mercury isotopes into a watershed, found methylmercury deposited di- rectly into the lake was readily bioaccumulated in fish. However, mercury deposited into the watershed was stored, with little uptake in fish. Although this study found a rapid initial decline in fish mercury concentra- tions, on the order of years, full recovery was delayed as watersheds continued to export mercury to the lake. In addition, contaminated peat and upland soils could take centuries to decline entirely (30). A second study suggests that ecosystem responses to input reductions may occur over two phases: first a relatively fast 20-60% reduction in mercury levels in predatory fish over a few decades, but then a long- tailed reduction over decades and even centuries to reach a more complete reduction (31). For this reason, ecosystem responses to mercury abatement may not be linear and remain uncertain.
- 33. 2.5 How will ecosystems respond to emissions reductions? Ecosystem responses to mercury abatement vary depending on the type of ecosystem, location specific hydrology, water quality, soil cover, trophic structure, temperature and the timing and delivery of deposition into waterbodies (27). For these reasons, proximate ecosystems can vary significantly in their mercury concentrations. Together, several factors affect a given ecosystem’s sensitivity to mercury loading: • The topography of nearby terrestrial ecosystems, including the watershed size and watershed-to- surface water ratios, affect the residence time of mercury in the soil. This in turn alters the speed of mercury loading in waterbodies and later conver- sion to MeHg. • Larger watersheds with less surface water likely retain larger amounts of mercury in the soil, al- though this effect is perhaps small (29). • Wetlands, lake sediments and anoxic bottom waters are significant sites of MeHg conversion as these ecosystems have longer water residence times, al- lowing greater opportunity for greater conversion. • Land use change, through conversion of forested areas, may also increase mercury loading in water- bodies; however, runoff in agriculturally converted areas may lead mercury to be associated with par- ticulate matter, decreasing its bioavailability. 9
- 34. 3.2 Which industrial processes use mercury? Mercury is used in a number of industrial processes including chlor-alkali production and vinyl chloride monomer production (VCM). Chlor-alkali production, used to make chlorine and caustic soda, creates significant demand for mercury. If the mercury cell process is used, mercury is released to the atmosphere and nearby waterways. When chlor- alkali plants close or are converted, large amounts of mercury can be released to the environment if not carefully managed. Emissions from existing mercury process plants in Western Europe and the U.S. have been reduced via regulation, as well as voluntary ef- forts. Many other countries, including Brazil, have taken action to reduce emissions; however, these plants appear to be relea sing more mercury than compa- rable European plants (32). Roughly three-quarters of the entire global chlorine production capacity exists in Western Europe and North America. Vinyl chloride monomer (VCM) production is a pro- cess used to create polymers particularly polyvinyl chlo- ride (PVC). The use of mercury in VCM is particularly concerning as it is not clear how much of the mercury is lost during the process (32). The process has been phased out in Europe and the United States. How- ever, China demands >600 metric tonnes of mercury per year as an input to the VCM process, representing an estimated 80-90% of the
- 35. world’s VCM production. Demand for PVC in China is increasing, with mercury use in VCM nearly doubling between 2002 and 2004 from 350 tonnes to 610 tonnes of mercury (32). Issue 3. Introduction Mercury is an excellent material for many products and processes because of its unique combination of char- acteristics: it is a liquid at room temperature, acts as a good electrical conductor, has a high density and high surface tension, and is toxic to microorganisms. For these reasons, mercury is used in a number of products and processes globally, despite clear reasons for concern (Figure 11). Although mercury is also used for ASGM, this issue is treated separately in the following section (Issue 4: ASGM). 3.1 Which products contain mercury? • Mercury is used in measuring devices (manometers, thermometers), electrical and electronic switches, fluorescent lightbulbs, dental amalgam fillings, batteries, biocides (in the paper industry), antisep- tics (in pharmaceuticals), catalysts, pigments and dyes, detergents, and explosives. • Mercury compounds are used in a wide variety of health and beauty products, including pesticides, biocides, pharmaceuticals, and cosmetics, despite their known human toxicity. • In some cases, substitutes have been implemented,
- 36. however, mercury continues to be intentionally used in some products. Figure 11. Global Mercury Demand by Sector (31) 3 Demand for Mercury Used in Products & Processes 9 10 3.3 How much mercury is traded? There is significant trade in mercury and mercury-con- taining products, some of which is illegal, uncontrolled and/or unregulated. Global trade in mercury products is likely in the range of $100-150 million annually (32). Global demand for mercury has declined from more than 9,000 metric tonnes annually in the 1960s, to just under 7,000 metric tonnes in the 1980s, and less than 4,000 metric tonnes since the late 1990s. In 2005, global demand for mercury was 3,000-3,900 metric tonnes per year (32). While demand for mercury has been declining in developed countries, there is evidence that mercury demand remains relatively robust in many lower income economies and supply is shipped from many developed countries (Figures 12 & 13): • In South and East Asia, demand continues for mercury use in products, vinyl chloride monomer (VCM) production and ASGM.
- 37. • In Central and South America, demand for mer- cury continues for ASGM. • Significant quantities of mercury are shipped from Western Europe (the EU plus Switzerland) to Asia, Africa, and Australia. Figure 12. Mercury Trade Shipments, 2004 (31) Figure 13. Global Mercury Demand & Supply by Region, 2005 (31) • The United States also exports mercury to Central America and Asia. Figure 12 shows differ- ent sizes of arrows representing larger and smaller volumes of mercury mov- ing between regions during 2004. 11 4 Artisanal & Small-Scale Gold Mining Issue 4. Introduction Mercury has been used in the process of gold and silver mining since Roman times. Today, high gold prices, combined with difficult socio-economic situations in some communities, has led to increased use of mercury for small-scale mining, particularly in the
- 38. southern hemisphere. These practices largely occur within the informal sector and are unregulated, making information on scale, impacts and solutions difficult to ascertain (33). 4.1 What is the scale of ASGM globally? It is estimated that ASGM for livelihood purposes involves more than 100 million people on all con- tinents and in 55 countries. Of this, it is estimated 10-30 million people are miners, including 4.5 mil- lion women and 1 million children. ASGM produces ~20-30% of the world’s gold production. Although ASGM can be conducted without mercury, speed and simplicity make mercury-use the most common method (33). • Currently, mercury amalgamation is used as the major artisanal technique for gold extraction in South America, China, Southeast Asia and Africa. Countries with significant operations include China (200-250 tonnes released) and Brazil, Columbia, Peru, Bolivia, Venezuela, Tanzania, and Zimbabwe (10-30 tonnes each) (33; Figure 16). • As a consequence of poor practices, recent esti- mates suggest mercury amalgamation in ASGM results in the discharge of 650 to 1000 tonnes of mercury annually, representing approximately one-third of all global, anthropogenic mercury releases. Thus, ASGM may be the single largest intentional-use source of mercury pollution in the world (34). Almost all mercury used in ASGM is eventually released (34).
- 39. • It is estimated that as much as 300 tonnes of mercury per annum are volatilized directly to the atmosphere, while 700 tonnes are discharged in mine tailings into soil, rivers and lakes. In addition to domestic pollution impacts, both air emissions and tailings discharge contaminate international waters and air (34). • Although the sale and use of mercury for ASGM is officially banned in Brazil, China and several other countries, this ban is clearly difficult to enforce in the rural areas where ASGM occurs – especially since these activities often occur in the informal sector. 4.2 What are the impacts of ASGM? During one of the steps of the gold purification pro- cess, gold amalgam is heated, releasing mercury vapor (Figure 14). Occupational hazards from ASGM are significant. Miners and community members may breathe air with Hg concentrations above 50 µg/ m3, which is 50 times the WHO maximum public exposure guideline. As a result, miners can exhibit mercury-poisoning symptoms including tremors (34). Figure 14. ASGM Techinques Using Hg 12 In addition to occupational hazards, ASGM generates thousands of dispersed, polluted sites, often present- ing serious, long-term environmental health hazards to populations living near and downstream of mining
- 40. regions (35). As a result of ASGM practices, mercury is found in surrounding soils, plants, sediments, water- ways, and especially mine tailings at extraction sites and at trading posts. Recent scientific research suggests most mercury pollu- tion from ASGM occurs locally (~60%) with a smaller proportion contributing to the global mercury pool (~30%), although this research was based on historic mining periods (34). 4.3 What are the potential actions to address mercury use in ASGM? ASGM continues due to a combination of high-gold prices, access to mercury and persistent poverty (35). In addition, the practice takes place largely within the informal sector, making regulation difficult. The im- pacts of mercury pollution are complex, time-delayed and difficult for miners to see, impeding efforts to reduce hazardous practices (34). Finally, many miners are unacquainted with cost-effective hazard reduction techniques (36). Nevertheless, mercury releases and health hazards may be reduced by: • educating miners and families about hazards and alternative techniques • promoting capture devices, such as retorts, which can reduce mercury emissions up to 95% (35; Figure 15) • developing facilities where miners can take concen- trated ores for the final refining process • banning the use of mercury by artisanal miners,
- 41. which may encourage central processing facility use; however, enforcing bans can be difficult. For all these actions, widespread adoption of mercury-free or reduced risk gold- mining practices will require substantial investment in terms of technology and training (37). Trade regulation may also be necessary as much of the mercury that is used for ASGM enters the country legally for other purposes, including use in products and processes (33). Figure 16. Mercury Consumption for ASGM Figure 15. Using a Retort 13 Options for actions on mercury There are several actions available to reduce global mercury releases: • controlling mercury emissions through end-of-pipe
- 42. technologies (e.g. scrubbers on coal power plants) • reducing consumption of raw materials and prod- ucts that generate mercury releases • substituting products or processes for those that do not use mercury • reducing mercury use in ASGM Unintentional atmospheric emissions: mercury releases through coal combustion can be reduced with exist- ing scrubber technology used for sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides; these scrubbers also remove Hg(II) and Hg(P). However, mercury specific scrubbers are required to remove Hg(0). The use of particular control techniques depends on the type of coal being com- busted, as this alters the relative amount of Hg(0) and Hg(II). Mercury use in processes: mercury releases and oc- cupational exposures may be reduced through strict mercury accounting procedures, management measures to keep mercury from being dispersed, filtering exhaust air and proper disposal of mercury wastes. Several pre- vention or alternative technologies already exist with more in development. Mercury in products: substituting non-mercury prod- ucts and managing the waste stream may reduce mer- cury releases and exposures. ASGM: mercury releases and exposures can be reduced through the use of capture devices, including retorts. Actions may focus on technology transfer, including building central processing facilities. Bans on mercury
- 43. may also be pursued. All actions on ASGM will require technical and institutional support to ensure success. Conclusion. Data Gaps. A number of countries have data gaps in their national mercury release inventories or lack inventories alto- gether. Missing data may include: information on uses and emissions, sources of releases, levels in the environ- ment and prevention and control options for mercury and mercury compounds. Many countries could also benefit from developing a national action plan for mercury. Some data needs include: • National inventories on use, consumption and releases of mercury. • Monitoring of levels of mercury in various media and biota and assessment of the impacts of mer- cury on humans and the environment. • Information on transport, transformation, cycling, and fate of mercury in various compartments. • Evaluation tools for human and ecological risk as- sessments. • Information on possible mercury exposure preven- tion and reduction measures. • Public awareness-raising on the potential adverse impacts of mercury and proper handling and
- 44. waste management practices, particularly for mer- cury use in ASGM. • Capacity building and physical infrastructure for safe management of mercury as a hazardous sub- stance, potentially on a regional basis. • Information on trade in mercury and mercury- containing materials. 14 1. Selin NE (2009) Global Biogeochemical Cycling of Mercury: A Review. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 34:43- 63. 2. Fitzgerald WF, Lamborg CH, Hammerschmidt CR (2007) Marine biogeochemical cycling of mercury. Chemical reviews 107:641-62. 3. Engstrom DR (2007) Fish respond when the mercury rises. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104:16394-5. 4. Arctic Monitoring Assessment Programme (2011) AMAP As- sessment 2011: Mercury in the Arctic. 5. National Academy of Sciences (2000) Toxicological Effects of Methylmercury. 6. Roman H et al. (2011) Evaluation of the cardiovascular effects of methylmercury exposures: current evidence supports
- 45. develop- ment of a dose-response function for regulatory benefits analysis. Environmental health perspectives 119:607-14. 7. Harada M (1995) Minamata disease: methylmercury poisoning in Japan caused by environmental pollution. Critical reviews in toxicology 25:1-24. 8. Bakir F et al. (1978) Methylmercury poisoning in Iraq. An epi- demiological study of the 1971-1972 outbreak. Science 181:230- 241. 9. Mahaffey KR (1998) Methylmercury exposure and neurotoxic- ity. JAMA 280:737-8. 10. Wheatley B, Paradis S (1995) Exposure of Canadian Ab- original Peoples to Methylmercury. Water, Air, & Soil Pollution 80:3–11. 11. Cox C et al. (1989) Dose-response analysis of infants prenatal- ly exposed to methyl mercury: an application of a single compart- ment model to single-strand hair analysis. Environmental research 49:318-32. 12. Crump K et al. (1995) Reanalysis of dose-response data from the Iraqi methylmercury poisoning episode. Risk analysis 15:523-
- 46. 532. 13. UNEP Chemicals (2002) Global Mercury Assessment. 14. Budtz-Jorgensen E et al. (2000) Benchmark dose calculations of methylmercury-associated neurobehavioural deficits. Toxicology letters 112-113:193-9. 15. Grandjean P et al. (1999) Methylmercury exposure biomark- ers as indicators of neurotoxicity in children aged 7 years. Ameri- can journal of epidemiology 150:301-5. 16. Davidson PW et al. (1998) Effects of Prenatal and Postnatal Methylmercury Exposure From Fish Consumption on Neurode- velopment Development Study. Test 280. 17. Cernichiari E et al. (1995) The biological monitoring of mer- cury in the Seychelles study. Neurotoxicology 16:613-28. 18. Crump KS et al. (1998) Influence of prenatal mercury expo- sure upon scholastic and psychological test performance: bench- mark analysis of a New Zealand cohort. Risk analysis 18:701- 713. 19. McDowell M et al. (2004) Hair Mercury Levels in US Chil- dren and Women of Childbearing Age: Reference Range Data from NHANES 1999-2000. Environmental Health Perspectives 112:1165-1171. 20. Arctic Monitoring Assessment Programme (2005) AMAP As- sessment 2002: Heavy Metals in the Arctic.
- 47. 21. Mahaffey KR (2005) in Dynamics of Mercury Pollution on Regional and Global Scales, eds Pirrone N, Mahaffey K (Springer), pp 345-384. 22. Pacyna E, Pacyna J, Steenhuisen F, Wilson S (2006) Global anthropogenic mercury emission inventory for 2000. Atmospheric Environment 40:4048-4063. 23. Pacyna EG et al. (2010) Global emission of mercury to the atmosphere from anthropogenic sources in 2005 and projections to 2020. Atmospheric Environment 44:2487-2499. 24. Selin NE et al. (2007) Chemical cycling and deposition of atmospheric mercury: Global constraints from observations. Journal of Geophysical Research 112:1-14. 25. UNEP Chemicals (2008) The Global Atmospheric Mercury As- sessment: Sources, Emissions and Transport. 26. Streets DG, Zhang Q, Wu Y (2009) Projections of global mercury emissions in 2050. Environmental Science & Technology 43:2983-8. 27. Munthe J et al. (2007) Recovery of Mercury-Contaminated Fisheries. Ambio:33-44. 28. Task Force on Hemispheric Transport of Air Pollution (2010) Hemispheric Transport of Air Pollution 2010 Part B: Mercury.
- 48. Con- vention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution, UN 18. 29. Grigal DF (2002) Inputs and outputs of mercury from terres- trial watersheds: a review. Environmental Reviews 39:1-39. 30. Harris RC et al. (2007) Whole-ecosystem study shows rapid fish-mercury response to changes in mercury deposition. Proceed- ings of the National Academy of Sciences 104. 31. Knightes CD et al. (2008) Application of Ecosystem Scale Fate and Bioaccumulation Models to Predict Fish Mercury Response Times to Changes in Atmospheric Deposition. Environmental toxi- cology and chemistry 28:881-93. 32. UNEP Chemicals (2006) Summary of supply, trade and demand information on mercury. 33. Spiegel SJ, Veiga MM (2005) Building Capacity in Small- Scale Mining Communities: Health, Ecosystem Sustainability, and the Global Mercury Project. EcoHealth 2:361-369. 34. Spiegel SJ, Veiga MM (2007) Global Impacts of Mercury Sup- ply and Demand in Small-scale Gold Mining. 35. Swain EB et al. (2007) Socioeconomic consequences of mer- cury use and pollution. Ambio 36:45-61. 36. Strode S, Jaeglé L, Selin NE (2009) Impact of mercury
- 49. emis- sions from historic gold and silver mining: Global modeling. Atmospheric Environment 43:2012-2017. 37. Hilson G (2002) Small-Scale Mining in Africa: Tackling Press- ing Environmental Problems With Improved Strategy. Journal of Environment & Development 11:149-174. 38. Budtz-Jørgensen E et al. (2004) Association between mercury concentrations in blood and hair in methylmercury-exposed sub- jects at different ages. Environmental research 95:385-93. References. 15 Negotiation S1 2019 – Negotiation Simulation 1 All requirements for Negotiation Simulation 1 are to be submitted by Monday 25 March 2019 at 8.30am (first day of Week 7). Negotiation Simulation 1 is worth 20% of your final grade for the Unit. Referencing: as per Harvard style or AGLC4. You are to negotiate the facts scenario with your Negotiation Partner for Negotiation Simulation 1. See Facts Scenario on the next page.
- 50. You must have identified your Negotiation Partner with your relevant tutor. Assessment Requirements • Role You are to conduct your negotiation with one other student. Each negotiating pair will have one student as Raja and the other as Alex. You need to agree which partner is Alex and which is Raja in advance of the negotiation so that you can begin preparing your negotiation strategy before you conduct the simulation (recorded video of the Negotiation). • Negotiation Strategy for your character/role Each individual is required to develop their own negotiation strategy in relation to the role they are playing (ie: a negotiation strategy for Alex OR Raja). Your strategy, at a minimum, needs to clearly identify the Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA), the worst alternative to a
- 51. negotiated agreement (WATNA) for your character (Alex or Raja) and the ZOPA. Two documents (Negotiation Navigation Map and the 7 Elements of Negotiation) have been provided (see Student Resources Module in Canvas) to guide you in your preparation of your negotiation strategy – it is YOUR choice how to use these documents. These documents are not to be ‘cut/pasted’ as your submission. • Video/record your Negotiation You and your Negotiation Partner are to record/video your Negotiation simulation. The simulation is to be for a duration of no less than 20 minutes and no more than 40 minutes. The video/recording of the negotiation simulation is to be uploaded to Canvas in the form of a media file and needs to be uploaded by each student to their
- 52. own submission for the Negotiation Simulation 1 Assessment. • Document your Agreement You and your negotiation partner will need to draft up a written agreement. The agreement can take any form you like (it does not need to be a legal Deed – law students may wish to draft a Deed however, it is not necessary for the purposes of this assessment task). Total word limit for the Negotiation Strategy document is 1500 words (maximum). The written agreement is not included in the word limit however, the written agreement is a key component of the assessment task. Use of tables and dot points is acceptable. So, what do I need to submit to Canvas for Negotiation Simulation 1 (the assessment task)? • Your negotiation strategy • The Agreement drafted by both Raja and Alex (ie: you will
- 53. submit the same agreement as your Partner) • A video/recording of Raja and Alex’s Negotiation Simulation in a media file format. Some tips: Remember, you need to evidence an understanding of positional and interest-based negotiation and how to use an appropriate strategy, style and skill at any point during the negotiation. It will be important to highlight your understanding of this during the negotiation simulation (ie: the recorded simulation). There are no ‘Oscars’ for this assessment, so please ensure that you are mindful of providing you and your partner with the opportunity to learn from this exercise (in other words, do not engage in obstruction or overly-dramatic tactics to derail the simulation). Feel free to improvise, whilst remaining consistent with the information
- 54. provided in the fact scenario. Remember, you are looking for a solution. After the completion of Negotiation Simulation 1, you may consider undertaking a reflexive analysis of the Negotiation process and outcomes – and including this in your Reflexive Journal. Neighbours in dispute: Fact scenario Alex Smith and Raja Feradi are neighbours, renting adjoining flats from their landlord, Jane Tough, for two and half years. They have lived in almost constant conflict the entire time. Recently, however, the conflict has worsened and Alex has started calling the police to assist. Alex is a writer who works from home during the day in the study, playing classical music to help concentrate. Alex has a manuscript due in 2 weeks’ time. If Alex does not submit the manuscript on time, the publisher applies a penalty of $1,000 for every week that the manuscript is delayed. Alex has assessed that if will take another 4+ weeks to finish the manuscript if the constant noise continues.
- 55. Alex is stressed. Alex wants to stay in the flat because the rent is so affordable. Alex is due to go on a holiday in 2 weeks and can’t afford to cancel the trip. Alex has asked the landlord if the flat can be sub-let for the next two weeks (this way Alex still has money coming in to cover the rent of the flat), however the landlord has said no. Raja is an electric guitarist who works in a band at night and practises at home during the day in his flat’s loungeroom or any room in the flat, depending on Raja’s mood. Raja is happy with the flat and thinks that Alex is a self- absorbed pain who is not flexible to everyone else’s needs, including Raja’s creative genius. Raja’s band has a tour in 3 weeks’ time and then after returning from the tour Raja will be out of the flat in 6 weeks’ time – for good. The police have visited both neighbours on a number of occasions. They have warned Raja to keep the noise down but have also told Alex that there is nothing they can do provided the sound levels are kept at an 'acceptable' level during the hours of 7 .30am and 10pm. Alex's and Raja's definitions of 'acceptable' differ wildly. Both Raja and Alex have complained to Jane, the landlord, on numerous occasions,
- 56. Raja about harassment and Alex about noise. Jane is tired of the situation (and not happy about the constant appearance of police at her investment property!) and has given them both an ultimatum - sort out the problem themselves within a month or both get out. Note - Picture of Alex and Raja’s adjoining flats on the next page. Bedroom Entry Lounge Dining Kitchen Bath Study Bedroom Entry Lounge Dining Kitchen Bath Study ALEX’S FLAT RAJA’S FLAT
- 57. Reflexive Journal Assessment Your reflexive journal is due Sunday 12 May 2019 at 23:59 (last day of Week 13) It is worth 30% of our total final grade for the Unit. Word limit = 1200 words (minimum) to 1500 words (maximum). Referencing: Harvard-style referencing or AGLC4. What am I required to do? This assessment task requires you to complete and submit a Reflexive analysis of 1200-1500 words on three to five themes (of your choosing) relating to your learning in this Unit. You can use the 4Rs framework as guidance, however, please review Chapter 1’s (Negotiation: Strategy Skills Styles) explanation of reflective and reflexive practice to ensure that you understand the distinction between reflective and reflexive practice. The important of your reflexive journal Reflexive journal writing is used by students in many professions as an education tool to facilitate practice development. Reflexive journal writing is described to explicate the process of generating and integrating new understandings to extend practice. Illustrations of reflexive journal writing demonstrate the usefulness of journaling to inspire new
- 58. insights and extend Negotiation’s knowledge. A retrospective analysis revealed that this process is beneficial for (a) understanding contextual influences on practice, (b) connecting theory and practice, (c) self-evaluation and supervision, (d) practice development, and (e) understanding the usefulness of negotiation. Journal writing and analysis is considered a valuable method to facilitate the development of negotiation students in their journey towards becoming more reflexive practitioners. By engaging in reflexive practice, we can learn from our mistakes and understand the reasons behind our success stories. So, what should my reflexive journal contain in terms of content? As stated above, you are required to complete and submit a reflective and reflexive analysis of 1200- 1500 words on three to five themes (of your choosing) relating to your learning in this Unit. The practical content of the workshops – in particular, the use of scenarios and other materials, such as questionnaires etc – aims to facilitate your ability to engage in reflexive learning and support you in your drafting and finalisation of content for your reflexive journal. The Journal can address themes such as the subject matter knowledge covered, the skills acquired or enhanced, specific assessment task(s) undertaken, feedback
- 59. received versus self-assessment on these assessment tasks, the teaching and learning approach used, and your inter-relationship with other students and the lecturer. For example – you might decide that one of your themes has been your focus on how you identified a style preference as a positional negotiator (perhaps using the questionnaires provided) – and how you have used the workshop scenarios to focus on building your cooperative style. Work through what you have done – what were the challenges – has this enhanced your learning and understanding of others, environments and situations? How will this link to your professional practice? For example - Perhaps conflict may be one of your themes, particularly if you have identified a preference for conflict-avoidance. What tactics did you use to address this preference – how did you test it in a practical sense? What impact has this had on your personal and/or professional style and how will this translate to your career, profession and interactions with people? Students may find that undertaking a weekly or fortnightly learning log might assist in developing the content for the Journal. The following template is provided to assist students in this process.
- 60. WEEKLY/FORTNIGHTLY LEARNING LOG/JOURNAL Based upon your observations and reflection before, during and after class in this Unit, write a general overview of this week or this fortnight’s learning in this Unit using the following format to help structure your thoughts for possible inclusion in the Reflexive Journal. Area DESCRIPTION Reflecting upon this week’s learnings, summarise one main idea/point in one or two sentences (consider any aspects of concepts, theories, models, perspectives, readings, or links with other areas being studied). PROCESS Having discussed the above with a colleague (or yourself) write down one example of what you’ve learned and how your views may differ (if any) from others’ views (consider your initial reactions, how it relates to your approach to learning, what sources of information influenced or challenged your thinking, etc.).
- 61. IMPLICATIONS (Academic, personal and/or professional) How and in what manner do this week or this fortnight’s learnings contribute to your academic and/or your professional development? (consider what this learning experience personally means to you, what approaches, ideas, concepts in your other studies or life experiences might be relevant, etc.) Final Thoughts How is this this log or journal helping you to understand and integrate the Unit’s themes into your professional life, your current study, your professional
- 62. development and to your success in this Unit. Rubric Reflexive Journal – Marking Criteria (30%) Assessment Criteria less than 50 Pass 50-64 Credit 65-74 Distinction 75-84 High Distinction 85 plus Reporting and
- 63. responding (note and deliberate about aspects of practice) (25%) Non-reflexive stance Reflexive analysis as a mere observer Reflexive analysis as a dialogue Reflexive stance looks to synthesis Reflexive analysis that extract meaning and new
- 64. knowledge on the part of the learner Relating (make connection with existing knowledge and skill) (25%) Non-reflexive stance Reflexive as a mere observer Reflexive as a dialogue Reflexive stance looks to synthesis Reflexive analysis that extract meaning
- 65. and new knowledge on the part of the learner Reasoning (move to consider context, issues, significance for practice) (25%) Non-reflexive stance Reflexive as a mere observer Reflexive as a dialogue Reflexive stance looks to synthesis Reflexive analysis that
- 66. extract meaning and new knowledge on the part of the learner Reconstructing (most difficult to achieve and assess, demonstrate new ideas, new ways of thinking) (25%) Non-reflexive stance Reflexive as a mere observer Reflexive as a dialogue Reflexive stance
- 67. looks to synthesis Reflexive analysis that extract meaning and new knowledge on the part of the learner Source: Adapted from Carroll, M 2010 Levels of reflexive: on learning reflexive, Psychotherapy in Australia, vol. 16, no. 2, pp 24-31.and from Bain et al. 2002 as cited in Ryan, M 2013, (p. 147) ‘The pedagogical balancing act: Teaching reflexive in higher education, Teaching in Higher Education, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 144-155 Relative Strength: Areas for Consideration: