FNI Report 5/2026. Lysaker, FNI, 2026, 28 p.
Considerable political and scholarly attention has been paid to multilateral environmental agreements (MEA) dealing with climate change and air pollution, with less focus on biodiversity and chemicals. There are however a far greater bulk of bilateral environmental agreements. Here we examine the bilateral mercury agreement between China and Norway, a collaboration that has arguable led to an increase in Chinese attention to the Minamata Convention.
We propose that there are similarities and analytical elements transferable from MEA-studies to the study of bilateral agreements. Thus, we apply theoretical approaches from the study of international regimes and global environmental governance to the bilateral mercury agreement. Arguing that there is more to the story than Norway paying China for reducing mercury emissions, we draw attention to factors beyond the actors’ basic power and interest structures, such as the integration of science in policy making and institutional design factors (financial mechanisms, agenda setting, and transparency). Methodologically we apply document analysis, supported by interviews with key actors.
The case emerges as not very suitable for drawing more general lessons from bilateral environmental agreements. The Norway–China relations are idiosyncratic in many respects, including their greatly uneven sizes, their very different approaches to the Minamata Convention, and the unique situation ensuing from the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize decision, which put Norway in the Chinese freezer for nearly a decade. Still, bilateral scientific collaboration had already been established on equitable terms, involving both Chinese and Norwegian scientists. As such, the bilateral agreement grew out of a predominantly scientific collaboration, involving low-level but highly competent administrative bodies with corresponding low political visibility.
In conclusion, the study directs attention to the advantages entailed in sheltering key collaborating actors from the global shaming/blaming scene and enabling scientific capacity building outside the global limelight.
