1. Debrief to the Mercury Negotiation Simulation
Created by Leah Stokes, Dr. Noelle Selin, Dr. Lawrence E. Susskind Massachusetts Institute of Technology

2. Agenda Review what happened Discussion on game outcome
History of UNEP mercury discussions ( )
Ideas from negotiation theory
Ideas on scientific communication

3. What happened? How did the negotiation unfold? Outcome Process
Important players
How was this different than your expectations before playing the game?

4. Scientific uncertainty is normal for scientists.
Game outcome
What key features of the science account for the game outcome?
Can you think of approaches to communicating scientific information that could overcome these obstacles?
Scientific uncertainty is normal for scientists.
How do policymakers understand uncertainty?

5. Game outcome
After playing the game, what do you think are the key obstacles to the mercury treaty negotiations?
What did your experience playing the game suggest about the balance between science, politics and economics when international negotiators consider options?

6. Game outcome Country roles:
How were you interpreting the scientific information from your position playing a country?
Did the experience help you think through what kind of information is useful for actual negotiators?
Scientific NGO roles:
What can an NGO do to create information that influences a negotiation?

7. History of global mercury regime
1950s: Minamata disease, Japan
1970s: Stockholm Declaration, marine and water pollution
1980s & 90s: Regional cooperation, waste
1998: LRTAP’s Aarhus Protocol on Heavy Metals (Europe and N. America)
1950s: Minamata disease, Japan
(Oslo & Paris Conventions, Great Lakes agreement)
1980s & 1990s (OSPAR convention)(Basel Convention)
1998: The Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution
LRTAP is a regional agreement under the UN economic comissions for europe (UNECE)
Often, when chemicals are phased out in Northern countries, negotiating a MEA provides a forum to advance chemicals phase-outs in the South (Selin, 2010). This dynamic is seen clearly in the case of mercury; many Northern countries have already acted both domestically and internationally through the LRTAP. Without an international agreement that includes developing nations, further improvement in global mercury control may prove difficult to attain. While the European Union in particular has advanced a legally binding mercury treaty through the UNEP since the early 2000s, progress has remained slow. Developing countries, including China and India, have increasingly argued that “common but differentiated responsibilities” necessitates that an enforceable financial instrument must motivate abatement actions.
Movement from local to regional to global regime

8. CLRTAP assessments (EU & North America)
Mercury assessments
CLRTAP assessments (EU & North America)
GMA
Supply
GAMA
AMAP
“assessments are undertaken w at least the nominal goal of constructing a science-based account of the problem in a way that decision-makers in multiple countries will view as useful.” - Mitchell et p. 4
1989
1995
2002
2006
2008
2011
Scientific assessments informing international action

9. History of UNEP mercury discussions (2003-2009)
2001: US led proposal for a global mercury assessment, rather than a heavy metals assessment (lead & cadmium)
2002: Global Mercury Assessment established global scientific baseline
Debate: voluntary or binding action?
2005: UNEP’s voluntary Global Mercury Partnership established
2007: Two track process for voluntary and legally binding approaches
Attempt to build consensus for action through accumulating scientific evidence

10. History of UNEP mercury discussions (2003-2009)
2007-8: Open-Ended Working Group
Concerns on cost of negotiating a stand alone treaty
Concerns on fit with existing chemicals treaties
90 countries supported a legally binding instrument
US, China and India delayed
2009: Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) established
: INC1 & INC2 held

11. Negotiation theory Active listening BATNA and ZOPA
Focusing on interests rather than positions
Inventing options for mutual gains
Importance of coalitions
Importance of active facilitation and consensus building
The multiparty negotiation format

12. Scientific communication
How do global environmental assessments influence policy?
What makes assessments effective? (Mitchell et al., 2006)
credibility: is it accurate?
saliency: is it relevant?
legitimacy: is it democratic/fair?
Global Environmental Assessments

13. Thanks for playing! Please complete the survey!
mit.edu/mercurygame