**** LATEST NEWS! ****


Part 1: Introduction

The deadline for the tender is: 12/02/2018

Part 2: About the EEB and the Zero Mercury Working Group

  • Created in 1974, the EEB is now the largest federation of environmental citizens’ organisations in Europe. It currently consists of over 140 member organisations in more than 30 countries (virtually all EU Member States plus some accession and neighbouring countries), including a growing number of European networks, and representing some 15 million individual members and supporters.
  • We work on a vast array of environmental issues and our policy officers work with experts, our members, politicians and the media to protect and further develop environmental policies.
  • The Zero Mercury Working Group (ZMWG) is an international coalition of over 95 public interest environmental and health non-governmental organizations from more than 50 countries from around the world formed in 2005 by the European Environmental Bureau and the Mercury Policy Project.  ZMWG strives for zero supply, demand, and emissions of mercury from all anthropogenic sources, with the goal of reducing mercury in the global environment to a minimum.  Our mission is to advocate and support the adoption and implementation of a legally binding instrument which contains mandatory obligations to eliminate where feasible, and otherwise minimize, the global supply and trade of mercury, the global demand for mercury, anthropogenic releases of mercury to the environment, and human and wildlife exposure to mercury.

Our website for more information: www.eeb.org / http://www.zeromercury.org

Part 3: Tender


The Zero Mercury campaign at the EEB would like to build a new website for Zero Mercury Campaign/Zero Mercury Working Group based on the existing website available at www.zeromercury.org – while maintaining the URL.

Active since 2005 the Zero Mercury Campaign, having grown into the Zero Mercury Working Group has a long history of action. We would like to see a visual update of the website, to a more modern and user-friendly visual look. The division of sections, and their related subsections should be divided between introductory and advanced mercury issues.

-          We would like to convey through our website an approachable and educational tool for mercury related issues.

-          On the other hand, on separate tabs we would like to make available the recent activity related:

  1.  to project implementation through our members in different countries, and
  2. the developments related to policy at international and EU levels.

The distinction between the “introduction to mercury” section and the “Policy” and “Projects” sections should be clear. We would like a visualization of introducing the general public to mercury through its various topics (processes, products etc), and then at the end of the page have a link where an individual can arrive at how the Zero Mercury Working Group is working on that specific issue at project and policy level as relevant. Simultaneously however, we would like to have a tab where stakeholders familiar with mercury issues and/or our work, can get directly to the advanced information without going through the introductory informational section or tabs.

We are looking for a proposal that explains in detail how the concept note below can be implemented.

Tender: revamp a website

  • The Zero mercury Working Group is looking to revamp its website. It currently does not do justice to the work carried out by the 95+ members organisations. This means a much more advanced structure with more visuals, conveying the image of a serious, trustworthy NGO coalition.
  • The new website should be Wordpress-based, allow for easy management internally and coded in an open and accessible way to permit other third party developers to easily adjust.
  • We would like the website to be a one-stop-shop for individuals that are new to mercury issues and simultaneously provide a platform where stakeholders familiar with mercury issues can find updates on international policy developments and relevant project information. 
  • The audience of the Zero Mercury Working Group website includes our members, representatives of EU institutions and member state governments, journalists, academics, other NGOs, progressive business and members of the public.

Please include the following and their related costs (separately) in your quote:

  • Design and development of new easy to navigate website
  • Transfer of data from the current our current CMS system, Joomla.  
  • Annual costs for domain name and hosting (including backup). We may decide to handle this ourselves depending on the quotes provided.
  • Annual costs for technical support.
  • Basic Google Analytics tracking on all pages.
  • SEO on all pages
  • Responsive design, with slick page scaling for tablets and smartphones.

Indicative timeline

  • 25/01 Publication for tender
  • 12/02 Deadline for submissions
  • 23/02 EEB/ZMWG evaluates proposals and contacts suppliers / Communicate to winning service provider
  • End Feb-Beginning of March: Signature of contract with EEB/ZMWG
  • Building of the website: March – April
  • Launch: end April- beg May

Criteria to be considered during evaluation

  • combination of price and quality,
  • production / delivery time and service.
  • having/using environmental and sustainability policy/criteria
  • the EEB holds the right to exclude a supplier who may have a negative financial record, that violates criteria such as bankruptcy, not paying taxes etc.

Part  4: Functionality

  • Slider for home page
  • Horizontal menu with drop down elements (within homepage – e.g. About us, About Mercury, Policy Developments, Projects, Resources, News  )
  • About us section
  • Map that interacts with posts to deliver news on members’ projects/activities
  • News section (Press releases)
  • Newsletter sign up widget
  • Position paper section (listed chronologically)
  • Publication section  displaying in an attractive way – showing the front cover of the publication – up to 10 publications per year
  • Photos, infographics, and videos should be downloadable.
  • Events section
  • Contact form
  • Possibility of archiving the content of the existing website

Home page

The home page is meant to be a public oriented landing page for individuals wishing to learn about mercury. The first image should be a large slider which in principle will not change over time. The slider will include 4-5 pictures referring to introductory information about the challenges surrounding mercury pollution, but also to some of the priority areas we work on.

Above it, a horizontal menu, with dropdown elements can be displayed, dividing between general mercury information, the policy work that ZMWG does along with current projects and other elements (to be detailed at a later stage e.g about us etc). Below the slider there will be some space to describe ZMWG group as an organization and post our latest news. There should also be space to include a footer providing our location and contact information.

As examples please see http://www.artisanalgold.org/ or www.sradev.org


The website should provide country-specific pages/posts with contact information for our different national partners, in addition to a description and updates of relevant projects that they do appearing within our website (via posts) apart from linking back to national websites. Accessing these country specific pages should be done through a map, e.g.  found on “About us” page. The map needs to highlight somehow differently countries where EEB/ZMWG are funding (or have funded) directly projects, whilst providing a link to that campaign (page/post).

We would also need to post updates about the relevant projects/campaigns, that will simultaneously appear in the “What’s new” section of the home page.

Technical prerequisites:

The CMS should be WordPress to align with our other websites. The current site is working with Joomla.

Visual identity / look and feel:

We do want to update, but not reinvent the visual identity of the Zero Mercury Campaign/ Working Group.

The Zero Mercury logo stays unchanged and is our branding basis. We would like the look and feel of the new website to be more visually oriented, as now it feels a bit text-heavy.

Footer: Logos and disclaimers of EC will need to go somewhere at the bottom 

Home Press Releases Environment and Health NGOs letter to the EU Environment delegates on the EU mercury export ban
Environment and Health NGOs letter to the EU Environment delegates on the EU mercury export ban PDF Print
Wednesday, 11 May 2005 01:00

Dear Environment Delegate,

With this letter we1 would like to underline the importance of a strong Environmental Council Decision, foreseen for the 24 June 2005, with respect to the Community Strategy on Mercury, as presented by the European Commission in January 2005. From our information, different opinions exist among the Council working group on environment on the proposed export ban on mercury, by 2011 at the latest. This letter is intended to explain the urgent need and justification for this highly important measure.

It is well known that mercury has no respect for national or regional boundaries, travelling long distances through the atmosphere, and contaminating both the European and global food supplies at levels posing a significant risk to human health. It is therefore clear that, since present measures are not adequate to sufficiently reduce the risks from mercury, further actions must be undertaken.

Responding to a 2002 request from the Council of Ministers, the European Commission prepared a Community Mercury Strategy that will lead to substantial reductions in both EU and worldwide mercury pollution and exposure. Reducing global mercury supply and demand is the cornerstone of this Strategy, which recognises that the EU must take a leading role in addressing these problems. This leadership role is not only a recognition of the EU responsibility for its share of the global problems, but also a pragmatic realisation that there is little point in reducing mercury demand simply within the EU, only to continue exporting large quantities of mercury to the developing world where it will be used under far less stringent controls, released, and ultimately be transported back into the EU environment and wind up, for example, in the fish EU citizens consume.

1Environmental NGOS include

The European Environmental Bureau, (EEB), www.eeb.org, is a federation of more then 140 environmental citizens’ organisations based in all EU Member States and most Accession Countries, as well as in a few neighbouring countries. These organisations range from local and national, to European and international. The aim of the EEB is to protect and improve the environment of Europe and to enable the citizens of Europe to play their part in achieving that goal.

Greenpeace, www.greenpeace.org , is an international independent, campaigning organisation that uses non-violent, creative confrontation to expose global environmental problems, and force solutions for a green and peaceful future. Greenpeace's goal is to ensure the ability of the Earth to nurture life in all its diversity

The Ban Mercury Working Group, www.ban.org/Ban-Hg-Wg/, is an international coalition of 27 public interest non­governmental organisations from around the world formed initially in 2002 by 2 US based NGOs, the Basel Action Network (www.ban.org) and the Mercury Policy Project (www.Mercurypolicy.org). working to end pollution from the toxic metal -- Mercury.

European Public Health Alliance Environment Network (EEN), http://www.env-health.org/ is an international non­governmental organisation advocating environmental protection as a means to improving health and well-being. Member groups and organisations represent health, environment, women, health professionals and others. The group has a diverse membership, 29 members with 5 international organisations, 10 European networks and 14 national/local organisations,

including non-governmental organisations, professional bodies representative of doctors and nurses, academic institutions and other not-for-profit organisations.

And with the support of NGOs from the USA (Natural Resources Defence Council), India (Toxics Link), China (Global Village of Beijing), Brazil (Association for Combats against the POPS).

Now that this important Communication is on your agenda, we would like to share with you our views with respect to the export ban on mercury, and explain why this ban is critical for the development of an effective Environment Council Decision – even if other mercury exporters are not yet taking an active role.

The proposed ban of EU mercury exports should be implemented as soon as possible, preferably by 2008 as originally proposed in earlier Commission drafts but also by the Luxemburg Presidency2, but certainly not later than 2011, for the following reasons:

  1. 1. The EU is the world’s largest mercury exporter, and most of this mercury goes to the developing world.

The EU exports more mercury overall, and more to the developing world, than any other region of the world, and government trade documents clearly show this. From 2001 to 2003, EU countries exported more than 3,000 tonnes of mercury – some 30% of global consumption3 – to non-OECD countries. Merely to cite a few examples, in 2003 alone, Spain exported 92 tonnes of mercury to Colombia, 53 tonnes to Peru, and 171 tonnes to Iran. Between 2001 and 2003, Spain and Germany exported 464 tonnes to Singapore, from where it was likely traded throughout Asia. From 2001-2003, Spain and the UK exported 470 tonnes of mercury to India, accounting for most of that country’s imports.4

As the world’s primary mercury exporting region, EU leadership in dealing with global mercury problems is an economic and moral imperative. Strong EU leadership will not only encourage other countries to reduce mercury consumption; it will also encourage further global trade deliberations needed to significantly reduce the role of mercury as a global pollutant in the international economy.

  1. 2. An EU export ban, coupled with other international actions as specified in the EU strategy document, will significantly reduce the disproportionate impacts of mercury exposure in the developing world caused by abundant mercury supplies, inadequate resources to enforce existing regulations and virtually no incentive to upgrade outdated technologies.

This mercury exported to non-OECD countries is largely consumed in poorly controlled and outmoded or illegal activities. According to the best information available, most of this mercury is destined for either battery production, use at chlor-alkali plants, or small-scale gold mining.5 All three of these activities, as practiced in much of the developing world, result in substantial exposure to workers and their families, and pollution of the local and global environments.

Small-scale gold mining is the area of highest global mercury consumption (estimated at 800 tonnes in 2004)6. As much as 95% of all the mercury used in small-scale gold mining is released to the environment. Similarly, chlor-alkali plants operating in India and elsewhere in the developing world release typically 10-50 times more mercury on a routine basis than plants operating in the EU-15 countries.7 The use of mercury in battery production appears to stem primarily from the continued manufacture of mercury oxide batteries containing 33-50% mercury,8 which OECD countries banned many years ago.

2 http://register.consilium.eu.int/pdf/en/05/st07/st07986.en05.pdf

3 COM (2005) 20 final - Extended Impact Assessment, on the Community Strategy on Mercury.

4 See UN statistics at http://unstats.un.org/unsd/comtrade/ and Eurostat statistics at http://europa.eu.int/comm/eurostat/ “external trade.”

5 Maxson, P. (2004). Mercury flows in Europe and the world: The impact of decommissioned chlor-alkali plants. Report by Concorde East/West Sprl for DG Environment of the European Commission.

6 Veiga MM, Maxson PA, Hylander L, “Origin of mercury in artisanal gold mining.” Paper accepted 12 August 2004 for publication in 2005 in the Journal of Cleaner Production (Elsevier).

7 There are regular reports of plants releasing even more. For India, for example, ref. R. Agarwal presentation on 22 April 2005, “Towards a mercury free world” conference, Madrid. For Russia, ref. ACAP. 2005. Assessment of Mercury Releases from the Russian Federation. Arctic Council Action Plan to Eliminate Pollution of the Arctic (ACAP), Russian Federal Service for Environmental, Technological and Atomic Supervision & Danish Environmental Protection Agency. Danish EPA, Copenhagen.

8 Maxson, P. (2004). Mercury flows in Europe and the world: The impact of decommissioned chlor-alkali plants. Report by Concorde East/West Sprl for DG Environment of the European Commission.

3. This prohibition on mercury exports will contribute to decreasing demand for mercury due to an eventual price rise.

An EU mercury export ban, signalled several years in advance, would have direct effects on global commerce. Decrease in the quantities of mercury readily available to the market would lead to an increase in the price. For many low-technology uses such as small-scale gold mining, higher prices have been demonstrated to encourage direct reductions in mercury uses and releases.9 In fact, the GEF/UNDP/UNIDO Global Mercury Project, which has worked with small-scale gold miners for many years, has strongly advocated an EU export ban as an effective way to reducing mercury demand in small-scale gold mining10.

Opponents of an export ban argue that new production of mercury might be triggered to fill in any gap in market demand. Besides ignoring a range of EU initiatives proposed to help curb mercury demand, this argument lacks merit since it ignores the limited ability, for both technical and political reasons, of mercury-producing countries to expand their output. Algeria’s capacity has long been limited to about 450 tonnes per year, with 2004 output far below that at around 150 tonnes. Algerian production even up to present capacity would not be expected without serious government investments in equipment and management, which seems unlikely in view of competing and generally more profitable, alternative investments in Algerian resource development such as hydrocarbons.11

In a similar way, the mining complex in Kyrgyzstan has rarely in recent years produced as much as 600 tonnes in one year12 — although having a nominal capacity of 1000 tonnes. For varied reported reasons – including recent difficulties with flooding and maintenance, complex mining conditions, potential exhaustion of the higher quality ore reserves and tension over mercury production with neighbouring Uzbekistan – this country often produces well under 600 tonnes, making any increase above that unlikely. Indeed, an attempt to privatise the Kyrgyzstan complex in August 2003 failed due to lack of interest from investors13.

In addition, it is important to keep in mind that China’s mercury production, recently reported at 600 - 650 tonnes annually, has long been devoted to satisfying booming domestic consumption.14

Moreover, any argument against the export ban ignores the political pressure to decrease, not increase, production that has already hit Spain, and will face other producing countries once the EU formally endorses the export ban. Indeed, the pressure has already begun, since shortly following the release of the EU Strategy, the UNEP Governing Council adopted a resolution in February 2005 calling upon governments and others to curb the primary production of mercury and the introduction into commerce of excess mercury supplies. This same resolution also requests UNEP staff to prepare a report on the global trade in mercury so that further options addressing this trade can be considered at the 2007 Governing Council meeting. Consistent with these UNEP Governing Council resolutions and the proposed EU export ban, we urge EU countries to initiate bilateral discussions on this issue with Algeria and Kyrgyzstan as soon as possible.

9 Veiga MM, Maxson PA, Hylander L, “Origin of mercury in artisanal gold mining.” Paper accepted 12 August 2004 for publication in 2005 in the Journal of Cleaner Production (Elsevier).

10 COM (2005) 20 final - Extended Impact Assessment, on the Community Strategy on Mercury, pg. 26

11 COM (2005) 20 final - Extended Impact Assessment, on the Community Strategy on Mercury, pg. 25 and http://www.mem-algeria.org.

12 “Regional awareness raising workshop on mercury pollution: A global problem that needs to be addressed,” Kiev, Ukraine, 20-23 July 2004. Sponsored by the United Nations Environment Programme within the Inter- Organization Programme for the Sound Management of Chemicals, and organized jointly with the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources of the Ukraine and the Institute of Occupational Health in Kiev. Proceedings issued by UNEP Chemicals, November 2004. Geneva.

13 COM (2005) 20 final - Extended Impact Assessment, on the Community Strategy on Mercury, pg. 25-26 14China Non-Ferrous IndustryYearbook 2004, China Non-Ferrous Industry Association and (http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/mercury/mercumcs05.pdf).

4. Investigation into the temporary storage of EU chlor-alkali mercury is required.

As an integral part of the EU strategy to simultaneously address global supply of and demand for mercury, temporary storage of decommissioned mercury from the chlor-alkali industry should be investigated immediately and implemented in the near future. The need for such storage is not disputed by the industry association Euro Chlor, which has already begun to study the options available. Much of the estimated 12.000 tonnes of mercury in the EU mercury-cell chlor-alkali plants destined for decommissioning over the next 15 years will not be needed to meet shrinking global demand. Furthermore, the pursuit of temporary storage must incorporate the ultimate intention of permanent retirement. Otherwise this measure will only delay the use, releases and impacts of the surplus mercury, not prevent it. Storage areas must be secure sites, continuously monitored and located where intervention can take place immediately if necessary. Storage of this surplus mercury (and over time, mercury from other sources such as recycled products) builds upon the recent decision by the United States Department of Defense to store rather than sell its own 4,400 tonnes of excess mercury.

In conclusion, we wish to reiterate our wholehearted support for the mercury export ban which is at the very core of the European Commission strategy on mercury. The value of a strong and responsible EU commitment to addressing mercury problems on the global stage cannot be underestimated. The implementation of a strong EU strategy is needed to maintain the international focus on reducing world-wide mercury supply (i.e., phase-out mercury mining, store excess mercury supplies) and demand(reduce all uses, and end unnecessary and obsolete uses). This is a straightforward opportunity for the EU to continue to lead the way in reducing health risks to millions of its own citizens, and many more globally, that we cannot afford to miss.

Thank you in advance for your interest and support, Yours sincerely,

John Hontelez,                                                                                    Michael T. Bender,

Secretary General                                                                               Northern Representative

European Environmental Bureau                                                   Ban Mercury Working Group

http://www.eeb.org http://www.ban.org/Ban-Hg-Wg

Jorgo Riss                                                                                            Genon Jensen,

Director, Greenpeace, European Unit                                          Director, European Public Health Alliance

http://eu.greenpeace.org Environment Network