FRAM FORUM 2019
scientific assessments to back political decision-making in the negotiations. Both the Arctic Council and the Nordic Council also played important roles in research financing.
RESEARCH NOTES
35
witzerland, proposed to start negotiating an agreeS ment at the UNEP Governing Council meeting in 2003. Later, in 2009, Canada changed its view when the US changed its position on a legally binding agreement at the start of the Obama administration.
CANADA AND NORWAY Our project also examined the positions and roles of Canada and Norway in the scientific production, preparations, and alliance building in the UNEP negotiations, as well as their main arguments. The data for this study were collected through literature review and interviews with the leaders and delegates from the two countries. The delegations included representatives from government agencies and research institutes; the Canadian delegation also included an indigenous NGO. We found that both countries provided essential contributions to the realisation of the convention, though in different ways and at different phases of the process. Whereas Canada and Norway are both receivers of long-range transported mercury pollution from other countries, their respective pollution history differs. Being an industrial country with a population of 37 million and a large mining industry, Canada has substantially higher national emissions and releases of mercury than Norway (with a population of approximately 5 million). Like other countries with an economically significant mining industry, Canada was in a bit of a bind. The Canadian government wished to reduce national emissions, but also wanted to avoid putting overly strict regulations on their mining industry. Nonetheless, Canada made significant reductions in mercury emissions during the 1990s, as did Norway. As a substantial part of the mercury deposited in these countries originates from sources outside their respective boundaries, they both realised that further substantial reductions could only be achieved through international regulations.
Both Norwegian and Canadian input was central in the scientific research revealing that mercury travelled long distances from its original sources and into the Arctic. In Canada, mercury studies in the Arctic were led by the government’s Northern Contaminants Program. This programme also helped fund and build the capacity of an Arctic indigenous organisation, the Inuit Circumpolar Council (ICC). As a result, ICC was able to put efforts into mercury and help inform the negotiation process. It is clear from statements made by the Canadian Government that its principal concern in the negotiations was to protect the indigenous population and biota in the Arctic from mercury pollution. The environment and human health in the Arctic were also major concerns for Norway; however, the national stance on the convention was also motivated by scientific findings of high levels of mercury in freshwater fish of high food value in other parts of the country. From our study we conclude that the following are important for a nation to succeed in an international environmental policy process: 1) having a sound scientific foundation and communicating this in ways that non-experts can understand; 2) including experts among the delegates in negotiations; 3) having well-prepared position documents; 4) having strong national backing from government, industry and NGOs; and 5) having a negotiation team with the will and skill to compromise and build alliances.
FURTHER READING: However, Canada (along with Australia, the US, Japan and Russia) was initially against a legally binding agreement on mercury and argued for a voluntary solution. The main reason for opposition to such an agreement was concern about yet another resource-demanding negotiation procedure on chemicals. Norway, on the other hand, was in favour of a legally binding agreement and, together with
Platjouw F, Steindal EH, Borch T (2018) From arctic science to international law: the road towards the Minamata Convention and the role of the Arctic Council. Arctic Review on Law and Politics 9: 226-243
The project was financed by the Fram Centre Flagship “Hazardous substances – effects on ecosystems and human health” .