Zero Mercury Campaign - Developments at EU level

On November 14, 2006, the European Parliament voted on the Measuring and Control equipment containing mercury proposal for a directive. The NGOs had sent a letter and suggested voting list to all Members of the European Parliament on the 13 November 2006.

The European Parliament has supported a mercury ban on all new fever thermometers (for consumers and healthcare) and all other measuring instruments only intended for consumers. They have supported that barometers should NOT be included in the ban. This was contrary to what the NGOs , the Council and the Commission was hoping.
However, by voting for an exclusion of the barometers from the ban, the European Parliament broke the compromise package which was agreed between Council, Commission and Parliament, and by doing this an immediate agreement and adoption of the directive is not possible.
Now the Council (Member States) have to say whether they would agree with the Parliament's position or not; if they agree we might still have a quick agreement othewise we will probably go for second reading and an agreement (with or without the barometers) will take longer before it is agreed.

The European Parliament's adopted text in first reading (14 November 2006) can be found here.

It now seems that the Presidency intends to go for a Political Agreement later in December. For that reason the Environmental NGOs sent a letter to the Ministers part of the Competitveness council underlining the significance of a strong agreement, on 1 December 2006.

COREPER has now reached political agreement on the basis of the copromised package as discussed in the relevant Council document of 12 December 2006. The German Presidency is now expected to adopt a common position on the basis of this agreement.

On January 31, 2007 and in view of the start of the discussions on the EC Proposed Regulation for an EU export ban and safe storage of mercury, the environment and health NGOs called the Environment Committee of the European Parliament and the Council experts for a robust EU Mercury export ban and safe surplus storage regulation

At the European Parliament the rapporteur for the Environment Committee (lead commitee) is Mr. Papadimoulis (GR/GUE) and the rapporteur for the International Trade Committee (providing opinion) is Mr. Holm (SWE/GUE).

The International Trade (INTA) Committee voted (1st reading) on the Mercury export ban regulation proposal on March 21, 2007. The report from the rapporteur (Mr. Holm, GUE/SWE) and the proposed amendments are available in most of the EU languages. In preparation for the vote the NGOs asked MEPs of the INTA committee to support the Rapporteur's report and amendments - the letter was sent on the 20 March 2007.

The first reading vote at the INTA committee outcome can be briefly found below:
The proposal for amendments for earlier export date, extension of the scope of the ban to compounds and mercury-containing products already prohibited for sale in the EU market and an import ban was rejected. The committee supported amendments proposing NGO participation at the consultation process, Member states to be providing information more regularly and from 2007 onwards as well as financial support to developing countries and NGOs. The possibility that MS should have the right to impose broader and more stringent bans on the basis of Art. 176 of the EC treaty was also supported.

Ecologistas en Accion attended and gave a presentation at a meeting organized by the Ministry of Environment, Spain and MAYASA, Almadén Spain, on management of mercury, on 28 March 2007.

The ENVI committee first exchange of views, on the mercury export ban, was held on March 22, 2007
The report from the rapporteur (Mr. Papadimoulis, GUE/GR) is already available in EN and PL . The rapporteur (Papadimoulis,GUE/GR) proposed amendments including an export ban by 2009, extending the scope to cinnabar ore, mercury compounds and mercury-containing products prohibited for sale in the EU market, an import ban, only temporary storage of liquid metallic mercury and regular provision of information. The conservatives did not support neither the earlier date nor expanding the scope. Support was given for an earlier date but rather 2010, from the socialists and liberals since this was the date adopted at the Parliament resolution on mercury in March 2006. Support was also generally given for extending the scope of the export ban to certain compounds and products. No further comments were mentioned with respect to the storage. Finally a discussion took place on the legal basis of the proposed regulation – on whether it should be dual – Art. 133 and Art. 175 – as proposed by the EC, or only based on the environment –Art. 175. A few MEPs who intervened on the issue, proposed that it should rather stay dual since this was the European Court of Justice decision on a relevant regulation.

3 May – First reading Vote at the ENVI committee (documents in EU languages, point 9)

The Environment Committee of the European Parliament voted on the 3 May 2007, in a rather positive way, asking that mercury compounds with mercury content more than 5% w/w and mercury-containing products prohibited in the EU should be included in the export ban. However they only asked for this ban to take place by 1.12.2010. Import ban of mercury and certain compounds was also requested by the committee as well as temporary storage solutions for the surplus mercury, since no safe permanent disposal options are still availalbe. The also requested that regular provision of information by the Member States and relative industries should be submitted to the Commission and be made public, including information already from 2007. Exchange of information shall be with all stakeholders and technical assistance shall be provided to developing countries and NGOs. Finally penalties for infringements were requested to be set , as well as promoting awareness on mercury. After clarification from the EP's Legal Service it was decided that the regulation shall only be based on Art. 175 of the EU Treaty, allowing MS to take broader and more stringent national measures on the export ban.

Measuring and control equipment containing mercury - Council Common Position (CCP) has been adopted on 19 April 2007. The NGOs responded with a press release on the 20 April 2007. The CCP follows the compromised packaged including that the EC will do a report in two years, on the alternatives to mercury-containing sphygmomanometers and other equipment used in healtcare and other professional uses, and that mercury-barometers will be banned in 2 years time from the date of the adoption of the directive.

22 May 2007 - Greenpeace, EEB, HEAL/HCWH and the Zero Mercury Working Group responded to the invitation for comments from the European Commission , on the review of the RoHS directive. Comments submitted and relevant attachements can be found below:

The EU Strategy adopted in January 2005 identified dental amalgam as an area for concern and requested an opinion from the EU Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks to consider whether additional regulatory measures are appropriate.

These two committees will work in parallel over the next months and publish their assessment in December 2007.

In March 2006, the European Parliament called on the Commission to bring forward a proposal to restrict the use of mercury in dental amalgam by the end of 2007.

Given these developments in scientific assessments and policy demands on the widespread use of mercury used in dental amalgam, the EEB, together with HEAL and the Zero Mercury Working Group, are organising this conference on the 25 May 2007 in Brussels, as a contribution to engaging more stakeholders in this important debate. The conference is entitled " Dental Sector as a source of mercury contamination".

Measuring devices containing mercury - An additional note was sent to the Envioronment committee of the European Parliament on the 4 June , calling on the support of the MEPs to the Councli Common Position and against the barometer exemption.

The outcome of the vote was a victory for common sense! and against the barometer exemption! See NGOs press release on the 4 June 2007

Pressure is being put from the NGOs to the Council and Commision - two letters have been sent

The European Parliament voted on the proposed amendments on the 20 June 2007. The outcome of the vote was very positive. The Parliament asked for extended export ban scope to include mercury compounds (with mercury content more than 5% w/w), cinnabar, and mercury containing products which are banned in the EU. Date of export ban proposed was the 1 December 2010. An important ban of metallic mercury, cinnabar and mercury compounds (with mercury content more than 5% w/w) was also proposed by 1 December 2010.
On the storage, the Parliament asked that metallic mercury is only temporarily stored in salt mines or in above ground facilities. A fund shall be set up, from fees provided by industry, which will be used for the treatment and final disposal of metallic mercury once a safe final disposal method is in place.
They further asked that Member States shall provide periodically detailed information about the movement of mercury and its compounds, to the EC. Relevant industry (chlor-alkali and others) should also provide data to the commission.
Finally Parliament asked for the legal basis to be based on Art. 175, therefore on environment, allowing Member states to adopt measures related to the export ban sooner , and in a stricter form if relevant.
The NGOs reacted positively to this development – Press release was sent on the 20 June - http://www.zeromercury.org/press/070620ExportBanPlenaryNGOsPR.pdf

The Environment Council, met on the 28 June, trying to reach a political agreement on the regulation. After long discussions, the Council agreed that the export ban should only cover metallic mercury, by 1 July 2011.
On the storage, NGOs were cautiously pleased. The Council proposed that metallic mercury considered as waste may be stored temporarily or permanently in salt mines or deep underground formations , and/or temporarily on special above ground facilities. However, in addition, they decided that requirements for storage facilities and the criteria to accept storage of liquid metallic mercury must be adopted before any final disposal can occur. The Commission would have to submit a report reviewing research on safe disposal options including the ‘solidification’ of liquid mercury, one year before the export ban start. The Commission then, may present a proposal to revise the regulation as soon as possible and before two years after the ban begins. Depending on the outcome of the research, permanent underground storage of liquid mercury may still have to be seriously reconsidered.
Council did not ask for periodical submission of information from MS to the Commission, nor additional data to be provided by industry to the Commission. In addition, the decided that legal basis of the directive should be based on both on articles 133 (commerce) and 175 (environment) of the Treaty, contrary to what has been suggested by the legal services of the Council and Parliament.
NGOs reacted with a press release to this result, on 28 June 2007 - http://www.zeromercury.org/press/070628NGOsonEnvCouncilExportBanPolAgreement.pdf

On July 9-10,2007 the European Parliament vote in its plenary session. The amendments tabled to exempt barometers were rejected and therefore the Council Common Position text was adopted by plenary. The adopted text can be seen at http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/07/st05/st05665-re01.en07.pdf

Thermometers and all other measuring devices for domestic use will soon be mercury-free.
Barometers using the metal will be banned two years later, and by then the Commission will report
on the availability of reliable, safer, mercury-free alternative measuring devices, especially blood
pressure devices used in hospitals and doctors’ practices.

This file is closed as far as the legislative process is concerned. Many thanks to all of you, who helped reaching a good result.

An exchange of views on the EU Mercury Strategy was foreseen to take place at the Environment Committee of the European Parliament on Monday 21 November 2005. To that end, the NGO coalition sent a letter to all Members of the Environment Committee on 16th November 2005. The letter was accompanied by a copy of the Report from the International Conference "Towards a mercury-free world", April 2005, Madrid. The hearing was postponed at the end, to take place on the 23rd January 2006.

Mirek Suta, Green circle, helped of Czech TV team or prepare 18 min. long reportage significance of NGOs for decontamination process of Hg hot-spot in chlor-alcaly facitily Spolchemie in Usti nad Labem (on Elbe river near to Czech-German boarder). Czech TV released this reportage 3x last week and it is
availble on internet now: http://www.czech-tv.cz/vysilani/prog7895.html?porad=1095913550 Hana Kuncova from Arnika is on the film as well!

Following up the discussion on Directive 2002/95/EC (ROHS), comments with the opinion of the NGOs(and annexes I, II, III), were submitted on the 13th January 2006 to the consultant(and the EC). The consultant has been commissioned from DG Environment to look at whether the scope of the ROHS directive can be broadened to include measurement and control equipment as well as medical devices.

On January 23rd, 2006 the Environment Committee of the European Parliament debated for the first time the draft report of the rapporteur on the Community Strategy Concerning Mercury. The NGOs had already sent their comments on November 16th, when the debate was initially foreseen. The draft report has been very good and really in line with our requests. Amendments were then submitted by other Members of the Committee.

In view of the vote for a resolution of the Environment Committee of the European Parliament on the EU mercury strategy, on 22nd February, the NGOs established contact and met several of the key deputies, to ensure that the NGO line was taken on board. In January , the Environment Committee of the European Parliament debated for the first time the draft report of the rapporteur. Amendments were then submitted by other Members of the Committee.

On February 21st, 2006 the European Commission adopted a proposal for the restriction of mercury in certain non-electrical and electronic equipment such as thermometers. Official text can be found here.
The NGOs reacted on that by a press release on the same date. Our press release was picked up by several journals (see press clippings/products) and EEB was called by journalists. EPHA-EN were contacted as well and gave an interview at BBC World on the 22nd February.

On February 22nd, 2006 the Environment committee of the European Parliament voted on the draft report on the EU Mercury Strategy and amendments. The outcome was very positive and was applauded by the NGOs, via a press release.

On March 10th, 2006 the NGOs sent their comments and voting list to all the Members of the European Parliament, in view of the vote in plenary session, on the EU strategy on mercury, foreseen for the 14th March 2006, after a debate held on the 13th March 2006, in Strasbourg. The result was very positive and along the lines with the NGOs requests. To that end a press release was sent on the 14th March , following the vote. Once more our press release was picked up by several journals (see press-clippings/other).

On April 26th, 2006 the EEB attended a meeting on the possibility of extending the scope of the ROHS(2002/95) directive to include categories 8 (medical devices) and 9 (measuring and control equipment) of the WEEE (2002/96) directive. The NGOs had submitted comments mainly concerning mercury on the 13 January 2006. Further comments were submitted during the meeting. Our concerns were expressed during the meeting with respect to the outcomes of the interim report presented by the consultant. The minutes from the meeting are available upon request. Additional comments were submitted on the 17th May, including comments on lead.

On June 18th, 2006 the EEB organised an NGO meeting in Brussels to discuss strategies on mercury mainly at EU level. Around 25 NGOs attended the meeting.
On June 19th, 2006 the EEB organised a conference "EU Mercury surplus management and mercury-use restrictions in measuring and control equipment”, at the Goethe Institute, Brussels. The conference was attended by around 60 persons mainly representing different EU goverenments, as well as industy and environmental and health NGOs. More details about the conference including the conference report and participants list can be found here.

On the 12 July and in view of the debate at the Environment Committee of the European Parliament (13 July 2006) , on the EC proposal on restriction of use and marketing of certain measuring and control equipment containing mercury , a letter with the NGOs' key demands, was sent to all the MEPs for the Environment committee.

Further to that and in view of the meeting of the Council Working Group on Harmonisation(Hazardous Substances) on 7 September 2006, a briefing was sent on the 6 September, to the members of this group from the NGOs with their key demands on the issue.

On 8 September 2006 the NGOs sent a letter to 5 EU Commissioners and their respective Directors General as well as the Director General of the Legal Service, urging them to proceed with the regulation proposal for an EU mercury export ban. A press release on the same subject followed on the same day. Complementary to that, the Brazilian NGO, ACPO, also sent a letter to the EU Commissioners on the 10 September 2006. A press release was also sent to the Brazilian media on the issue.

On September 13, 2006, the Environmental Committee of the European Parliament voted on the Commission's proposal for a restriction of certain measuring and control equipment using mercury and the respective rapporteur's report on the issue. The NGOs had sent earlier on a letter to the ENVI MEPs and suggested voting list. An additional letter was sent to the ENVI MEPs from the Health NGO community. The result was very positive and the ENVI COmmittee asked for widening of the scope of the restrictions. Now further to the fever thermometers, also blood pressure devices and other instruments for healthcare should NOT contain mercury - some exemptions will be allowed. New revised text after the vote will be put on line soon. A press release on the outcome was sent on the 14 September.

On October 26, 2006 the European Commission proposed a regulation on the banning of exports and the safe storage of metallic mercury. The regulation is accompanied by an Impact assessment and a summary of the Impact assessment. The Environmental and Health NGOs welcomed the long awaited proposal as a clear message to the world, but regreted the fact that the scope did not cover mercury compounds as well as mercury-containing products already or to be regulated in the EU, as well as the late implementation date - see relevant press release.

On October 27, 2006 the Council Working Party Technical Harmonisation(Dangerous Substances), published their amendments to the European Commission's proposal for a directive restricting the marketing and use of certain measuring and control equipment containing mercury. The proposed amendments will be placed for voting at the European Parliament November I plenary session (13-16 November). The amendments propose that the European Commission should prepare a report 2 years after entry into force by the directive, on the availability of mercury-free alternatives for sphygmomanometers and other professional and industrial uses, and on the basis of that they should propose, if appropriate, opening the scope of the restriction to also include these devices. Another amendment proposes that barometers should be exempted by the restriction until two years after the entry into force of the directive. These proposals have been discussed already with the European Parliament representatives and are very likely to be adopted at the November Plenary, leading to a first reading agreement.

During Phase II of the Zero Mercury Campaign, the EEB focused on the mercury use in the chlor-alkali sector and more specifically in Italy, Spain and the Czech republic. Monitoring of mercury in the air outside 11 chlor-alkali plants took place in June 2006.
The monitoring was carried out by Ecologistas en Acción in Spain, by Legambiente in Italy, and by Arnika in the Czech Republic. The monitoring was part of a broader effort by EEB and cooperating organisations to:-

Further to the chlor-alkali campaign, the EEB commissioned a study to Concorde East/West SA on the Status of the Mercury cell chlor-alkali plants in Europe. The study highlighted the impact of Europe’s chlor-alkali plants. It reveals growing evidence that mercury air emissions from the EU’s chlorine plants may be significantly under-reported, by as much as five times, and might even equal emission levels from the EU’s large coal-fired power stations.

EEB has also issued its own report - Risky Business! No need for mercury in the chlorine industry - including independent air quality sampling results from around mercury-cell chlor-alkali factories in Italy, Spain and the Czech Republic, which found disturbingly high mercury levels around ten of the eleven plants monitored.
EEB has recommended to EU and national policy-makers that they:-

A press release on the same issue has been sent out on 10 November 2006, revealing the publication of the two reports.

Czech version, by STUZ, of EEB´s PR "Risky Business: Phase-out mercury in chlorine industry" with 1 paragraph with specific Czech info about Czech chlor-alkali (Spolana, Spolchemie). Czech PR version is available here: http://www.stuz.cz/view.php?cisloclanku=2006110009

The press release also went out in Spain by Ecologistas en Accion - http://www.ecologistasenaccion.org/article.php3?id_article=6078

As an answer to that, on the 23 November 2006 the EEB sent a letter to EuroChlor copied to EU Member State representatives and journalists

EU funded project on : Managing mercury

The third 2006 LIFE-Environment preparatory project is MERSADE - “Design, construction and validation of a prototype installation for a safe deposit of surplus mercury from European industry” (LIFE06 PREP/E/000003). The European Commission adopted a mercury strategy in January 2005 with the aim of effectively phasing out this highly toxic substance. The strategy states that surplus mercury should be safely stored or disposed of, and it is this aspect that the project will contribute to.


	A Mayasa secure mercury container (picture: Mayasa)

The project will both construct a pilot model for safe storage of mercury and test the effectiveness of disposal in bricks. The beneficiary is Minas de Almaden y Arrayanes SA (Mayasa), a Spanish company which runs a wide range of mercury-related installations across Europe. The beneficiary will work in partnership with Spain's Castilla La Mancha University, and the Spanish National Centre of Metallurgical Research. Spain is Europe's major mercury-producing country. The beneficiary's website is at http://www.mayasa.es

Further information

More details of the LIFE-Environment preparatory projects will be published as they become available. Background information about LIFE funding for preparatory projects can be found on the funding pages of this website.

In response to the EU developments and awaiting the EU strategy,, EEB , Ban-Hg-WG , Greenpeace and European Public Health Alliance Environment Network, sent a letter expressing their opinion, to all EU Commissioners and Directors General, on the 30/11/2004.

A letter was then sent from the EEB to all Environment Ministers in preparation for the Environment Council of 20/12/2004. One of the items mentioned was mercury.

Considering that the Strategy had to be adopted by the Commission before the end of the year, which did not happen, the EEB together with other NGOs sent a press release on 18/1/2005 on the Commission’s delay.

On the 20 th January, Arnika, a Czech NGO working on mercury, organized and event in front of the venue where Eurohlor – the European Chlor-alkali federation – organized a seminar, mainly for its members. On that occasion, the EEB, Arnika and other NGOs distributed a letter to the seminar participants.

The EEB and Ban Hg WG represented by Mercury Policy Project (MPP) met informally with the NL Environment Minister, and the two Environment attaches from the NL permanent representation . They also met with the Executive Director of UNEP, Klaus Toepfer. Mr. Toepfer and the Head of the UNEP Brussels liaison office, Mrs. Sylvie Motard.

Finally the EU Strategy on Mercury was presented by the Commission on the 31 st January; a press release was sent on this occasion from the NGOs.

Under this European update we should not forget that Spain has a major role to play considering that the world’s biggest mercury mine is in Almaden. Under the Zero Mercury campaign, an EEB member environmental NGO, and the biggest one in Spain, Ecologistas en accion, have hired a part time campaigner to follow and report on developments from that front. Her name is Leticia Baselga.

The International conference "Towards a Mercury Free World" took place on the 22 April 2005, in Madrid.
The conference was followed by an NGO strategy meeting on the 23 April 2005.
Furthermore, some NGO representatives visited the mercumy mines in Almaden, Spain on the 21 April 2005.

On the 11th May 2005, a letter was sent to the Environment Delegates concerning the urgent need for an EU mercury export ban. A press release followed on the same issue [11/5/2005]. The press release was also sent out in UK, German and Polish press on the 12 May 2005.

Considering that the mercury export ban was the main and most important issue on the debate in the Council, the EEB asked NGOs from the international network and mainly from the developing countries to send letters directly to the EU Environment Ministers. To that end Healthcare Without Harm sent a letter to the EU Environment ministers signed by all their offices/representative worldwide (Asia, Americas, Africa). Toxics Link from India sent also a letter on the issue to all the EU ambassadors in India asking them to also pass on the message to their governments. ACPO from Brazil sent also a letter to the EU Environment Ministers asking for an EU mercury export ban.

On the 25th May 2005, a fax was sent to the Member State Ambassadors reiterating the need for an EU mercury export ban, in view of the Ambassadors' meeting on the 25-26th May, where mercury is on the agenda. A press release followed on the same issue [25/5/2005].

On the 26th May 2005, a letter was sent to the EU ENvironment Ministers in preparation of the Council conclusions on Mercury, foreseen for 24th June 2005.

As a follow up of the Commission proposed actions in the EU Strategy on Mercury, and related to action 7, the Commission (DG Enterprise) sent to the NGOs on the 13th May 2005,a working document for the preparation of a proposal for a directive relating to restricitons on the marketing of certain measuring devices containing mercury. With respect to this working document the NGOs submitted their comments on the 3rd June 2005. A press release on the same issue was also published on the same day.

With respect to that directive, the EEB launched a call to all its members and other European organizations working on mercury or relevant issues, in order to contact their respective ministries and put pressure, so that national comments – supporting our case preferably- would be sent to the EC. Twelve Member States were contacted on the issue, which is still open.

On 24th June 2005, the Environment Council drew conclusions concerning the EU strategy. The Council stressed the importance for an EU mercury export ban by 2011 and further underlined the importance of the actions proposed to be taken by the Commission. At the same time proposed a few additional issues, that should be addressed in view of reducing the releases and uses or mercury in the environment, such as mercury use in vaccines and gold mining, consider the social problems arising from the closure of mercury mines – rehabilitation of contaminated sites and community assistance and further tackling of emissions from fuel combustion. An NGO press release was published on the same day.

Further to all above, the EU Strategy on Mercury will also be discussed at the European Parliament. Only at the end of May, a rapporteur (responsible Member of the European Parliament) was appointed with respect to the Mercury strategy. His name is Mr. Marios Matsakis, from the Liberals, and he is Cypriot.

On the 8th September the Commission organised a meeting on the proposed EU mercury export ban and the storage. The NGOs attended with a delegation of 5 persons from the environmental NGOs and 2 from the Health NGOs. Following this meeting the Commission asked the Member States and stakeholders to submit further comments. The Environmental and Health NGOs comments were submitted to the EC on the 3rd of October 2005 and can be seen here.

On 14-15th October the EEB in collaboration with EPHA Environment Network (HEAL) organized, in Brussels, an International Environmental and Health NGOs meeting on mercury, with the objectives to bring together the Environmental and Health NGOs from Europe and around the world, to learn and exchange information on the political developments, discuss about strategies, share experiences and look into potential collaboration between organisations and beyond national borders, on environmental and health issues related to mercury at national, European and global levels. 30 persons participated actively to the meeting.

A stakeholder consultation was launched by the Commission on the Adaptation to scientific and technical progress under Directive 2002/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment for the purpose of a possible amendment of the annex. Tne Environmental and Health NGOs' comments were sent on the 27th October 2005 and can be seen here.