**** LATEST NEWS! ****

EEB/ZMWG CALL FOR TENDER: WEBSITE RESTRUCTURING

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

Summary

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

Map

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 Our work at UNEP Level Towards a Mercury Treaty
Report from the NGO meeting on global mercury strategies 11 November 2007 and the first UNEP Open Ended Working Group(OEWG) on Mercury , 12-16 November 2007, Bangkok, Thailand. PDF Print
Friday, 10 September 2010 13:48

NGO meeting on global mercury strategies, 11 November 2007

Twenty five NGOs from 18 countries from around the world participated at the NGO meeting, organised by EEB/Zero Mercury Working Group, in Bangkok, in preparation for the first OEWG on mercury.

During the meeting the state of the world on mercury was presented to bring everybody up to date, as well as the position of the NGOs until now, and our proposals to the Governing Council in February 2007. Glen Wiser, CIEL, author of the Study on the different options, for UNEP, presented us the different options of legally binding instruments, existing and new.

The Study mainly included an analysis of the different policy options/instruments that can be developed to tackle mercury emissions, supply and demand. Chapter 4 of the UNEP study included a table listing potential control measures for each priority. A chapter also included a list of control measures per priority areafootnote.

Discussion followed between the NGOs and on the basis of the above we decided on 6 common points which the NGOs would need to push through to the governments during the meeting. The general feeling was that if governments tried to discuss different control measures and what policy option could be better for those to be implemented, this would be quite complicated and confusing. The NGO points agreed were the following:

Quick Guide to Public Interest NGO Views of the Open Ended Working Group on Mercury
11 November 2007

Objectives

  1. The first meeting of the OEWG should seek to reduce the number of options remaining for legally-binding approaches to at most two or three.

  2. Appropriate options for a legally-binding approach are ones that can support the full range of possible measures needed to control mercury releases from all anthropogenic sources.

  3. Approaches that attempt to parcel out different needed mercury control measures to different instruments are not likely to work in an efficient or comprehensive way.

  4. The most promising options for comprehensive legally-binding approaches are: a new instrument; a protocol to the Stockholm Convention; and possibly, an agreement to add methyl mercury to Annex C of the Stockholm Convention and to treat metallic mercury environmental releases as anthropogenic sources.

  5. Any legally-binding approach to mercury control must include a financial mechanism that obliges donor Parties to provide adequate, new and additional financial and technical resources sufficient to enable developing countries and countries with economies in transition to fulfill their obligations without undermining basic economic development and poverty reduction objectives.

  6. Legally-binding and voluntary approaches can and should both be pursued in a complementary way and at the same time. Voluntary approaches should be used to make early progress and gain experiences while a more systematic and precise legally-binding approach is being developed.

 

First OEWG meeting on Mercury, 12-16 November 2007

The OEWG started on Monday 12 November. John Roberts (UK) was elected as chair. A 5 member Bureau of the OEWG was created (including the chair) with representatives from all regions (Mexico, Belarus, Japan, Nigeria).

The NGOs had been pushing for a discussion to take place horizontally on the different options – legally binding and voluntary –in view of narrowing down mainly the legal ones, into two – a protocol to the Stockholm Convention or a new free standing treaty. At the end the agenda was decided to follow the 7 priority areas (atmospheric mercury emissions, waste containing mercury, mercury demand-uses, mercury supply and primary mining, environmentally sound storage of mercury, contaminated sites, increase of knowledge in inventories, exposure etc) and the different control measures that could be taken under each priority area, and then a discussion on through which instrument these control measures could be implemented.

On the basis of that, the different control measures that could be added under each priority areas were discussed, and whether a voluntary or a legal approach would better suit each one was discussed by the governments.

The updated list of control measures as these were discussed in plenary and contact groups can be found here including section 4.7 on information. NGOs were also able to suggest additions which were accepted if supported by a country – all of the NGOs suggestions were included in the list.

Overall, on the implementation options, US, Australia, New Zealand, Argentina, and China supported voluntary approaches for all control measures. Canada agreed to this line as well but was somehow more open also to existing legal approaches –mainly the Basel and Rotterdam Conventions. The EU, Norway, Switzerland, Japan, Brazil, the African region, the CEE region and many countries of the Asia-Pacific and Latin America as well as the Arab countries expressed their support to a legally binding approach and preference to the creation of a protocol to the Stockholm Convention or a new free-standing treaty.

Finally governments entered into negotiation over what would be the intersessional work for UNEP secretariat in preparation for the Second OWEG foreseen to take place in October 2008.

Four proposals were tabled on what the intersessional work should have been:

  1. by the African Region, supported by Norway and Switzerland
  2. by the EU, mainly along the lines of the African proposal with minor differences
  3. by Australia and New Zealand
  4. by the US

In addition the US submitted a proposal for a Voluntary Framework to address global mercury risks.

After eight hours of negotiations (until 3.00 am) there was an agreement on the work to be done until October 2008. The agreed text on the Intersessional work can be found here.

Governments requested mainly UNEP to:

  1. provide information on how different financial mechanisms (GEF, Multilateral fund of the Montreal Protocol etc.) would apply on a New protocol to the Stockholm Convention on mercury, a new free-standing treaty and  on voluntary arrangements, and what is the funding currently available to address mercury;
  2. further analyse implementation options through which countries could pursue a new free-standing treaty, a new protocol to the Stockholm convention and voluntary arrangements;
  3. regroup the control measures within each strategic objective of each priority according to 4 clusters (inventories and knowledge building, BAT/BEP and product/standard restrictions, financial considerations and capacity building , and technology transfer) , indicating at the same time which of the control measures can be implemented at national level (considering countries’ capacity to do so), and which would benefit from a coordinated international framework whether through legal or voluntary arrangements.
  4. carry out different studies on: qualitative analysis of costs and benefits fir each of the strategic objectives, including information on the socioeconomic costs of continuing the status-quo, assessment on whether projected appropriate demand could be met if primary mining was phased out , and preparing an updated paper on major mercury containing products and processes that have effective substitutes.

Finally a draft report was produced from the meeting, additions/corrections were made in plenary and this will be submitted to the 10th Special Session of the Governing Council, February 20-22, 2008, Monaco.

To conclude, our main objective to narrow down the options of implementation instruments to a New protocol to the Stockholm Convention and a New free-standing treaty was met; the fragmented approach of tackling different issues through different existing legal instruments was chosen not to be considered, although Canada seemed to be pushing towards that direction – although isolated. The analysis of a voluntary arrangement still stayed on the table however for further consideration. Nevertheless all approaches as discussed were looking at a comprehensive instrument which would cover measures to tackle all seven priority areas. The effort from the US to request a study on the elasticity of mercury price related to the Artisanal and small scale gold mining (ASM) sector was rejected thanks to coordinated efforts….So, some first steps were indeed made to the right direction, streamlining global solutions on mercury, but there is some way to go.

A press release was send out from the NGOs at the end of the meeting, on 16 November 2007.

NGO activities
The NGOs were meeting every morning and evening before and after the plenary session for coordination purposes. On the basis of the regional representation and language capacities NGO representatives were also attending some of the regional groups – depending on their openness. Further to that a separate meeting was set up between the NGOs and the EU, and between the NGOs and the Asia Pacific region – which brought us closer to these countries and open further channels of communication.

Three NGO side events were organised during the OEWG in Bangkok.

1.  Mercury Uses in Developing World, on Monday 12/11

2. Mercury Effects on human health, on Tuesday 13/11

  • Mercury Effects on Human Health, Irma Makalinao, Pacific Basic Consortium for Environmental Health Sciences, Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology, University of the Philippines Manila

3.  The Global Movement for Mercury-Free Health Care, on Wednesday 14/11

and also

NGO representatives were invited to present:

All events were well attended and useful discussions/presentations took place which triggered the interest from government representatives.

Furthermore many interventions from different NGOs attending (each NGO had their own flag) were made from the floor during the plenary and many of our suggestions were supported by governments and eventually adopted by the plenary.

The NGO community with their interventions, side events and informal discussions made their presence very evident at the meeting and their input was appreciated by many governments and other inter-governmental organisations.

footnote Seven priority areas (atmospheric mercury emissions, waste containing mercury, mercury demand-uses, mercury supply and primary mining, environmentally sound storage of mercury, contaminated sites, increase of knowledge in inventories, exposure etc), have been identified, per Art. 19 of the UNEP GC 24-3 Decision, February 2007.