Mercury Emissions from GMOS / AMAP / UNEP

by

Nicola PirroneCNR – Institute of Atmospheric Pollution Research, Rome, Italy

www.iia.cnr.it

HTAP WorkshopPasadena,CA – 1-3 February 2012

Main steps of the “Mercury Policy Process”

2001 UNEP GC at its 21st session: need for a global assessment of mercury recognized

2003 Study “GMA Report“, prepared by UNEP presented to the GC at its 22nd

session. GC agreed for further international action on mercury

2005 UNEP GC at its 23rd session called for Mercury Partnerships between governments and stakeholders: Five Partnership Areas were identified

UNEP F&T published “Dynamics of mercury pollution on regional and global scales” Springer, USA (Pirrone and Mahaffey, Eds.)2005

UNEP GC at its 24th session: “two-track “ approach based on voluntary actions and on the path to LBI. An overarching framework for strengthening

UNEP Global Mercury Programme partnerships was developed 2007

AMAP and UNEP published “"The Global Atmospheric Mercury Assessment: Sources, Emissions and Transport”2008

UNEP F&T published “Mercury Fate and Transport in the Global Atmosphere: Emissions, Measurements and Models” Springer, USA

(Pirrone and Mason, Eds.) 2008-2009

UNEP GC at its 25th session: agreed on an Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) to prepare a legally binding instrument

on mercury 2009

INC’s work started in 2010 and will end in 20132010-2013

Contribution of Science to the Policy Process

2003

2005

2006

Contribution of Science to the Policy Process

2009

2009

AMAP/UNEP 2008

UNEP F&T 2008

Contribution of Science to the Policy Process

2009

2010

2010

2009

TF HTAP-UNECE 2010 ”Part B: Mercury” ReportPirrone N. and Keeting T., Editors

The HTAP report, published in 2010,was made possible by the commitment and voluntary contributions of a large network of experts in academia, government agencies and international organizations.

The objective of HTAP 2010 assessment is not limited to informing the LRTAP Convention but, in a wider context, to provide data and information to national governments and internationalorganizations on issues of long-range and intercontinental transport of air pollution and to serve as a basis for future cooperative research and policy action.

GMOS Goal

To establish a Global Observation System for Mercury able to provide ambient concentrations and deposition fluxes of 

mercury species around the world, by combining observations from permanent ground‐based stations,  and 

from oceanographic and tropospheric measurement campaigns.

www.gmos.eu

Innovative Aspects of GMOS GMOS supports the achievement of goals and objectives of key international programs

including the GEO Task “Global Mercury Observation”, the UNEP F&T, and TF HTAP of theUNECE-LRTAP convention.

GMOS is the first attempt to establish a coordinated Global Mercury Observation Systemthat combines observations from continuous ground-based stations, ad-hoc over-waterobservation programs, and aircraft-based tropospheric programs.

For the first time vertical profiles of tropospheric mercury concentrations at differentlatitudes and time of the year will be provided by coordinating the efforts of GMOS withthose of other on-going international programs in Europe and North America (i.e., CARIBIC,NAAMEX).

For the first time a full validation of global and regional scale atmospheric models willbe performed on the basis of observations that are representative of different regions,locations of natural and anthropogenic sources, terrestrial and aquatic receptors, andatmospheric transport patterns.

For the first time fully validated regional and global scale atmospheric models, will be usedto evaluate spatial and temporal patterns of ambient concentrations, and re-emission ratesfrom and deposition fluxes to aquatic and terrestrial receptors for different scenarios ofmercury emissions at regional and global scales.

WP-2: Global Emissions (WP Leader: Jozef Pacyna)

Contributions from AMAP/UNEP

Within UNEP activities the 2005 emission inventory

will be updated with contribution of GMOS, AMAP,

UNEP F&T

The 2020 scenarios, as the ones within the AMAP/

UNEP work can be used as a starting point.

GMOS plans to provide the 2030 scenarios during the

2012.

Global Pathways of Mercury

Source: Swain et al. (2007) Ambio 36, 45-61.

Global SupplyMain regional sources include:

1. Minining and processing of primary mercury ores;

2. Mercury from decomissioning of cell chlor‐alkali plants;

3. By‐products mercury from non‐ferrous metals manfg. and cleaning of natural gas;

4. Stocks of mercury from previous years (from mining, decom. chlor‐alkali, etc.);

5. Mercury recovered or recycled from products containing mercury.  

Global Mercury Uses

Chlor‐alkali10%

Batteries10%

Dental amalgam10%

Meas. & control10%

Lighting4%

Elect. controls5%

Gold and silver mining22%

Other uses8%

VCM21%

Maxson, 2010

Chlor‐alkali13%

Batteries10%

Dental amalgam10%

Meas. & control9%

Lighting4%

Elect. controls5%

Gold and silver mining21%

Other uses8%

VCM20%

Maxson, 2005

Mercury Consumption by Region and Application

Source: Maxson, 2010

Mercury Supply‐Excess / Asia and LA&C

Source: Maxson (2009)

The vast majority of imported mercury is used for ASGM and in lesser extent for Chlor‐alkaly and products.

The time of anticipated  mercury excessdepends on demand reduction in key sectors and policy decisions about recovering of mercury, and 

mercury storage management.

Mercury Trade

Source: Maxson, 2011 – personal comunication

Europe

China

USA

The need to unify current emission inventories

A: Pirrone et al., 1996; B: Pacyna et al., 2003; C: Pacyna et al., 2006; D: Streets et al., 2009bE: Pirrone et al., 2008; F: Pacyna et al., 2009; G: Pirrone et al., 2009; H: Pirrone et al., 2010

A A B C D E F G H A A B C D E F G H

Anthropogenic Emissions by Source (1985‐2005) by HAP 2010

A: Pirrone et al., 1996; B: Pacyna et al., 2003; C: Pacyna et al., 2006; D: Streets et al., 2009bE: Pirrone et al., 2008; F: Pacyna et al., 2009; G: Pirrone et al., 2009; H: Pirrone et al., 2010

A A B C D E F G H

Total Anthropogenic Emissions (1985‐2005) by HAP 2010

A: Bergan et al., 1999; B:Mason and Sheu, 2002; C: Lamborg et al., 2002; D: Seigneur et al., 2004E: Selin et al., 2007; F:Mason, 2009; G:  Pirrone et al., 2010

A B C D E GF

Total Natural Emissions (1999‐2008)

Where the uncertainties are ?

Water Surfaces

Region Net Evasion (average)(Mg y-1)

Net Evasion (average)(ng m-2 h-1)

Atlantic Ocean 842 0.94Pacific and Indian Ocean 1705 0.87Antarctic Ocean 10 0.11Mediterranean 70 1.83Coastal waters 60 1.96Lakes 96 2.39Total 2763 0.83

Source: Chapter‐7, by Mason (2008), Springer 2009; Pirrone et al. ACP, 2010; 

Forest Fires

Source: Friedli et al. ES&T (2008)

Global Emission:

675 Mg y‐1

Rocks, Soils & Vegetation

Region Net Evasion (Mg y)

Forest 343

Tundra/Grassland/Savannah/Prairie/Chaparral 449

Desert/Metalliferrous/ Non-vegetated Zones 548

Agricultural areas 128

Evasion after Mercury Depletion Events 201

Total 1669Source: Chapter‐7, by Mason (2008); Pirrone et al. ACP, 2010; 

Contaminated Sites

Global Mercury Emissions

Volcanoes90

Natural5118

Forest fires672

Oceans2682

Forest & agriculture1674

Anthropogenic2320

Global Emission (2008):7438 Mg yr‐1

Source: Pirrone et al. ACP, 2010; 

UNECE‐LRTAP TF HTAP Policy‐Relevant Science Questions

How does the intercontinental or hemispheric transport affect deposition patterns in the NH ?

Is it possible to characterize source-receptor relationship taking into account the various mechanisms affecting its cycle (emission-chemistry-deposition-reemission) and the spatial scale (local-to-regional-to-global) ?

Are emission inventories consistent with observations ? Is the contribution of natural sources well characterized ? Is the assumption of steady-state still valid ? What about the

temporal variation of the residence time of different Hg compounds ? Besides speciated Hg measurements, what other key

measurements do we need to improve our models capabilities ? How deposition loads would change in the next 20-50 years if a

50% reduction will occur in Hg emissions ? How future changes in ozone and aerosol concentrations will

affect Hg fate and transport ?

GMOS Ground-Based Observation System- www.gmos.eu -

GMOS Oceanographic Program- www.gmos.eu -

GMOS Aircraft-Based Program- www.gmos.eu -

CARIBIC Flights

European Tropospheric Mercury Experiments- ETMEx -

Mace Head, Irland

Po Valley, Italy

Etna Volcanoes, Italy

by an Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) supported by the Chemicals Branch of the UNEP Division

of Technology, Industry and Economics as secretariat

February 2009

UNEP GC agreed on

developing a global legally binding instrument on

mercury

About INC

All Governments

Intergovernmental organizations

Civil society’s representatives

Take part to INC

as o

bser

vers

as o

bser

vers

INC’s goal is to complete the negotiations before the 27th regular session of the

GC/Global Ministerial Environment Forum in 2013

Neg

otia

tion

sJune 2010

January 2011

Oct-Nov 2011

June 2012

Early 2013

INC-1: Stockholm, Sweden

INC-2: Chiba, Japan

INC-3: Nairobi, Kenya

INC-4: Uruguay

Diplomatic Conf: Japan

Following the negotiations, the text will be open for signature at a diplomatic conference (Conference of Plenipotentiaries),

To be held in 2013 in Japan

About INC

UNEP Report for the GC 2013 Introduction

Part A: Global Emissions of Mercury to the AtmosphereA1. Sources of mercury emissions to the atmosphereA2. Estimates of global anthropogenic emissions to the atmosphere in the period 2008‐2010A3. Trends in mercury emissions to the atmosphere

Part B: Global Releases of Mercury to Aquatic EnvironmentsB1. Sources of mercury releases to aquatic environmentsB2. Estimates of anthropogenic releases to aquatic environments in the period 2008‐2010B3. Trends in mercury releases to aquatic environments

Part C: Atmospheric Pathways, Transport and FateC1. Atmospheric pathwaysC2. Levels and trends in air/atmospheric depositionC3. Modelling atmospheric transport and deposition

Part D: Aquatic Pathways, Transport and FateD1. Aquatic pathwaysD2. Levels and trends in aquatic environmentsD3. Modelling aquatic transport and fate

Gaps in knowledge and steps for improvement

UNEP Report – Work PlanPhase 1June‐July 2011: Initiate work, develop detailed project plan for Phase 1, first ‘preliminary emissions estimate’ expert meeting (see section “Organization and management”).

July‐ September 2011: Collect and review information (acquisition of preliminary data and information), compilation of preliminary data and prepare preliminary updated emissions estimates for selected countries and sectors. Meeting in the core expert and coordination group to review data.

July‐December 2011: Identify and engage relevant experts world wide, in particular from major emitting countries to obtain additional information and to check calculated emissions.

UNEP Report – Work PlanPhase 2February‐May 2012: Finalize compilation of inventories and generate gridded inventory datasets.

June 2012: Running models (dependent on availability of spatially distributed emissions datasets).

May‐June 2012: Preparation of technical report. Drafting meeting (May).

June 2012: Delivery of products by organizations responsible for other parts of the overall project work (Fate & Transport Partnership area, EU FP7 funded Global Mercury Observation System (GMOS) project).

UNEP Report – Work PlanPhase 2August‐September 2012: Finalization of technical report and summary report (incl. government review), i.e. develop final draft in which peer review comments have been taken into account;

End‐September 2012:Project expert meeting to discuss and approve products and plan presentation. 

October‐December 2012: Production of reports. Deadline for the summary report: 1st week of December 2012.

February 2013: Delivery of Technical report to UNEP Governing Council