**** 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 PR: European Commission falls behind on EU Mercury Strategy
PR: European Commission falls behind on EU Mercury Strategy PDF Print
Friday, 10 December 2010 01:00

Brussels, 10th December 2010

Environmental and Health NGOs [1] are deeply disappointed by the European Commission’s decision not to propose new restrictions on mercury until a global treaty is signed, in the recently adopted revised EU Mercury Strategyi.

“The revised EU Mercury strategy is practically an empty shell,” said Elena Lymberidi-Settimo, EEB Zero Mercury Project Coordinator. ”Instead of showing global leadership with European examples and setting the pace, the Commission has decided to take the back seat. Mercury pollution will just continue to create a risk to human health, ecosystems and wildlife.”

Until now the EU has been playing a leading global role on eradicating mercury, with the 2005 EU Mercury Strategy as its flagship policy. This Strategy had been instrumental in building international support through the United Nations where world governments agreed to develop a legally binding treaty on mercury by 2013.

“European ‘wait and see’ approach may slow down developments towards a strong mercury treaty because many countries look to the EU for guidance on reducing mercury pollution” commented Anja Leetz, HCWH Europe Executive Director.

Instead of showing the way forward, the revised strategy leaves all mercury control to existing EU laws which have been shown to be insufficient, particularly with mercury emissions to air. The EU has lagged in the phase out of mercury use in the chlorine production sector, with 30 such plants still operating despite alternatives existing since the 1980s. [2]

The groups also highlight the fact that, considering the Strategy’s aim is to 'reduce mercury levels in the environment and human exposure’, there should have at least been action on reducing emissions from coal combustion plants – the biggest sources of mercury emissions to air in Europe and globally.

“Installations continue emitting more than 20 tonnesii of mercury every year, therefore binding emission limits should be included in the new Industrial Emissions Directive (IED)”, said Christian Schaible, EEB Senior Policy officer for Industrial Policy.

The groups strongly doubt that the IED will crack down on these dangerous emissions since concrete pollution prevention measures depend on many different factors, particularly a strong Commission initiative, and will take at least seven years to deliver.

Member states and NGOs have called for immediate action on establishing a phase-out date for the use of mercury in the chlor-alkali industry, in dental amalgam, and in button cell batteries, and expanding the export ban to mercury-containing products which are prohibited on the EU market.

The health and environment groups were relatively pleased to see that the Commission will undertake some action on dental amalgams – namely a full lifecycle assessment. However, they feel direct phase-out actions could have been introduced, since safer alternatives are already available. The World Health Organisation has already supported a global phase downiii of mercury use in dental amalgams, and Sweden and Norway already have bans for this use.

”We urge the Council and European Parliament to send a strong message to the Commission and are calling for continued implementation of pending actions from the 2005 Strategy and to follow up actions identified in a recent Commission studyiv” said Lisette van Vliet, HEAL, Toxic Policy Advisor.

For further information please contact:

Elena Lymberidi-Settimo, EEB, Project Coordinator ‘Zero Mercury Campaign’ EEB, T: +32 2 2891301, This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Anja Leetz, HCWH Europe Executive Director, This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ; Tel: +49 175 732 0657

Lisette van Vliet, HEAL Toxic Policy Adviser, This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it '; document.write( '' ); document.write( addy_text9354 ); document.write( '<\/a>' ); //--> This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it , T: +32 2 234 3645 Simon Nazer, EEB press officer, T: +32 2 2891309, This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Notes to the editor

Mercury is a global pollutant that travels long distances. Its most toxic form – methylmercury - accumulates in large predatory fish and is taken up in our bodies through eating fish, with the worst impacts on babies in utero and small children. For more information, see Zero Mercury Campaign, www.zeromercury.org and “Stay Healthy, Stop Mercury” http://www.env-health.org/r/145

[1] The European Environmental Bureau (EEB), www.eeb.org, is a federation of over 150 environmental citizens’ organisations based in most EU Member States, most candidate and potential candidate countries as well as in a few neighbouring countries. EEB is the environmental voice of European citizens, standing for environmental justice, sustainable development and participatory democracy. We want the EU to ensure all people a healthy environment and rich biodiversity.

Health Care Without Harm Europe (HCWH-Europe), www.noharm.org, is the European branch of an international coalition of hospitals, medical professionals and environmental organisations working to transform the health care sector, without compromising patient safety or care, so that it is ecologically sustainable and no longer a source of harm to public health and the environment. The coalition has offices in Arlington, Brussels, Buenos Aires and Manila with over 484 members in 53 countries.

Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL), www.env-healt.org, is an international non-governmental 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 of 41 member groups (6 international organisations, 11 European networks and 24 national/local organizations) including non-governmental organisations, professional bodies representative of doctors, nurses and other healthcare workers, academic institutions and other not-for-profit organisations.

1 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/mercury/pdf/com_2010_en.pdf

1 EEB snapshot report: The European Chlor-alkali industry: Is national implementation of the IPPC Directive contributing to mercury-free industry?, December 2008]

1 Best Available Techniques

1 See editors notes

1From 2007 E-PRTR – European – Pollutant Release and Transfer Register, http://prtr.ec.europa.eu/ 1 During the first Intergovernmental Negotiating committee, Stockholm, June 2010.

[2]  The EU has lagged in the phase out of mercury-cell technology in the chlorine production sector, something on which the revised mercury strategy should have shown the way forward. There are still over 30 such plants operating in the EU, even though the industry voluntary agreement claims that the technology will be ‘mercury-free’ by 2020, and mercury free technology is widely available since the 80s. By contrast, there are only 4 are left in the US and India is phasing them out by 2012. A 2008 EEB reportv showed that the relevant EU law, the Industrial Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) Directive is not helping to phase out mercury from mercury-cell chlor-alkali plants (MCCAP) since the BATvi reference document (BREF) is not straightforwardly implemented.

The                 new                 Industrial                 Emissions                Directive                       (IED,

http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/10/pe00/pe00031.en10.pdf) is not expected to bring anything new towards further regulating the sector- if there is not clear phase-out obligation, and it is uncertain whether this will be included in the revised BREF. The Large Combustion Plant BREF review has not even started yet, and there is not even a clear mandate to include mercury related measures. Even if potential BAT-AELs are adopted, these would only apply in the operating permits after 7 years at the earliest.

not only include technology but also design maintenance and decommissioning. ‘Available’ means that techniques need to be developed on a scale which allows implementation in the industry sector under economically and technically viable conditions (considering costs and advantages) “Best” means most effective in achieving a high general level of protection of the environment as a whole. For full

definition see Article 3.9 (IED directive).

BREFS: are reference documents which set out BAT agreed upon an information exchange between industry, Member States and the EEB. Currently there are 33 BREF and these are in average revised every 8 years. So far only one BREF has been revised, i.e. the Cement and Lime BREF. For more information please consult http://eippcb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/reference/

BAT implementation - comitology:

An evaluation on implementation of the IPPC Directive found that half of the permits assessed were not demonstrably based on BAT set out in the BREF. In some cases significant differences between the permit conditions and the performance corresponding to BAT with a factor 2 up to 500 for certain pollutants were applied[1]. This was because the status of the BREF where reference documents only, without legally binding value to the competent authorities.

According to the IED (Article 13.7) the role of BAT and Bat associated emission levels (BATAEL) set out in a BREF would indeed be reinforced, but ONLY if these BAT conclusions would be formally adopted through a Comitology Decision. Only if this decision is taken on the BREF concerned, the permitting authority would need to set requirements in line with the BATAEL, and possible deviation would need to be justified.

Once a comitology decision is taken, this would trigger a permit re-evaluation and the operator would need to comply with (eventually) updated requirements within 4 years. Pending any comitology decision, the “business as usual” situation remains.

Relevant documents

EEB-HEAL letter to EU Env. Ministers for a robust revised EU mercury strategy, 11 October 2010

EEB comments on the BIO draft final report on the Review of the EU Mercury Strategy 16 July 2010

i http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/mercury/pdf/com_2010_en.pdf

ii From 2007 E-PRTR – European – Pollutant Release and Transfer Register, http://prtr.ec.europa.eu/

iii During the first Intergovernmental Negotiating committee, Stockholm, June 2010.

iv A study on the "Review of the Community Strategy Concerning Mercury" prepared for DG ENV by Bio Intelligence Service S.A.S (October 2010)

v EEB snapshot report: The European Chlor-alkali industry: Is national implementation of the IPPC Directive contributing to mercury-free industry?, December 2008]

vi Best Available Techniques


BAT: Best Available Techniques means the most effective and advanced stage in development of activities in order to prevent /reduce emission and the impact on the environment as a whole. It does