**** LATEST NEWS! ****



Summary of the First Conference of the Parties for the Minamata Convention on Mercury

24th-29th September, Geneva, Switzerland.

The Zero Mercury Working Group (ZMWG) closely followed the First Conference of the Parties for the Minamata Convention on Mercury (COP1) in Geneva, Switzerland, 24th-29th of September 2017 and intervened as appropriate[1]. We were pleased to see the COP1 reached consensus on pending matters from prior meetings of the Intergovernmental Negotiation Committee (INC) which resulted in establishing an effective Convention operational framework for achieving significant mercury reductions.

Our main priorities for COP1 included adoption of forms and guidance that was approved at INC 7, and addressing the issues of reporting, waste thresholds, interim storage guidelines, effectiveness evaluation, and matters for future action, which included the following decisions.

  • Article 3 guidance on identifying mercury stocks, and the forms/instructions for complying with mercury trade consent and related certification requirements;
  • The product and process exemption forms and associated register of exemptions under Article 6 of the Convention; a registrar will be kept by the Secretariat and these will also be available to the public
  • Article 8 (air emissions) guidance on BAT/ BEP, options for existing facility control requirements, preparing emissions inventories, and selection of “relevant sources” within the specified source categories; and
  • The Guidance for preparing the ASGM National Action Plan (NAP) under article 7.

COP1 also saw significant progress concerning various other ZMWG priorities, including :

Reporting:          Forms were adopted for use by Parties to report back on the measures undertaken to meet Convention obligations and on the effectiveness of those measures.  In particular, ZMWG most welcomed the decision for a shorter reporting cycle for supply and trade, reporting per year data on a biennial basis. For other obligations, Parties will report every four years. It was also agreed that each Party will submit its first biennial report by 31 December 2019 and its first full report by December 2021. Parties are also encouraged to submit an electronic form,  and the Secretariat is requested to make the Parties electronic reports available.

Furthermore, it was agreed that Parties would provide access to their data related to mercury emissions, under Article 8. Parties would also provide the rational on how they plan to ensure that facilities responsible for at least 75% of the emissions from a source category are subject to controls.

Waste Thresholds:          COP1 established an intercessional work group to further elaborate on waste thresholds, building on a document introduced by Japan. As recommended by NRDC/ZMWG, the terms of reference for the working group were focused more on determining which mercury wastes warrant thresholds rather than assuming thresholds are appropriate for all wastes. The expert group will identify the types of waste that fall within the categories specified in paragraph 2 of Article 11, provide related information; prioritising the types of waste identified that are most relevant for the establishment of waste thresholds, and identify possible approaches to establishing any needed thresholds for those prioritised waste for consideration at COP2. We were also pleased to see COP1 approving the participation of civil society within the working group, another ZMWG priority.

Interim Storage:                             COP1 requested the Secretariat to undertake further revision of the draft guidelines through input from relevant experts, including technical experts from the Basel Convention and present a revised draft for consideration at COP2. Provisional use of the current draft guidelines is encouraged.

Effectiveness Evaluation:             COP1 adopted a draft road map for establishing arrangements both for providing comparable monitoring data and elements of an effectiveness evaluation framework, as ZMWG had sought.  To that end an ad hoc group of experts was established including 25 experts nominated by the Parties – 5 per region, as well as 10 civil society experts, including NGOs, as observers.

Matters for Future Action (Article 3) - (Article 14):              Several matters were brought up for consideration. Under Article 3, trade in mercury compounds was one of several issued identified for future consideration by the COP. In regards to Article 14 – Capacity building, technical assistance and technology transfer, Parties and other stakeholder were invited to submit relevant information on capacity building, technical assistance and technology transfer for the Secretariat to compile and present at COP2.

Despite progress made, challenges remain, both related to the location and structure of the Minamata Convention Secretariat and the Memorandum of Understanding regarding the financial mechanism of the Convention with the Global Environmental Facility (GEF). The Secretariat will be temporarily located in Geneva, with further review of arrangements at COP2.

In summary, the final road map is now in place to ‘zero down’ global mercury pollution, but critical work remains.   ZMWG looks forward to a productive second meeting of the Conference of the Parties, which will be held in Geneva 19-23 November 2018.   

[1] All ZMWG interventions are available on our website http://www.zeromercury.org/index.php?option=com_content&;;view=article&id=309:unenvironment-minamata-mercury-cop1-24-29-september-2017-geneva-switzerland&catid=54:developments-main-category&Itemid=104

Home Press Releases Toxic Trade Emerges as Priority Issue for Asia During Mercury Treaty Adoption:Japan mercury exports ...
Toxic Trade Emerges as Priority Issue for Asia During Mercury Treaty Adoption:Japan mercury exports cited PDF Print
Thursday, 10 October 2013 05:00
zeromercury WG_logo


Toxic Trade Emerges as Priority Issue for Asia During Mercury Treaty Adoption: Japan mercury exports cited

 Kumamoto, Japan; 10 October 2013:  As world governments bask in the celebration prepared by the government of Japan for the newly minted Minamata Convention on Mercury, the Zero Mercury Working Group [1] is calling on all countries – including Japan – to help stem the rise of Asia as the world’s mercury trading hub.

 “Traders are increasingly circumventing the export bans imposed by the EU and US by seeking safe havens, particularly in Asia,” said Richard Gutierrez, director of Ban Toxics in the Philippines. “Countries can stop this toxic globe trotting by enacting mercury export bans, following the lead of major trading giants the US and EU.”    

 Japanese exports of mercury accounted for about 400 metric tonnes over the past 4 years, according to UN data. [2] The mercury is frequently shipped to countries [3] where artisanal and small scale gold mining (ASGM) is prevalent, or to major trading centers where it can be traded for ASGM purposes. 

 Japan previously resisted NGO calls earlier to enact similar export bans, awaiting completion of the treaty negotiation process.  With the treaty text now finalized, NGOs are calling for Japan to immediately act.

 “Given its experience with Minamata, Japan should be taking the lead by shutting down its mercury exports,” stated Piyush Mohapatra, Coordinator at Toxics Link in India.  “It can not turn a blind eye to its own toxic exports, especially if it could be creating new “Minamatas” elsewhere in Asia and Latin America.”

  The largest mercury trade hub arising is Singapore.  According to UN COMTRADE data, Singapore was the largest supplier of mercury to the global market in 2012.[4]  During 2011 and 2012, Singapore accounted for approximately 444 MT and 478 MT of global mercury exports respectively.[5]

 Since Singapore imported even larger quantities during this period, it is acting as a toxic supply center for private traders. [6] The majority of these exports are directed to countries engaged in ASGM, with Indonesia receiving over half the exports in both years, and substantial quantities also shipped to Guyana, Kenya, Peru, and Malaysia.[7]

 Hong Kong is also a major trading center, with mercury exports of about 211 MT in 2011 and 245 MT in 2012. “Singapore and China need to differentiate mercury from other commodities, since the free trade of mercury endangers public health.” explains David Lennett, senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council.  

 Under the Minamata Convention, the trade in mercury will be controlled, largely through an informed consent procedure.  However, 50 countries will need to ratify the treaty before it comes into legal force. 

  “While there are alternatives to mercury and controls for major sources, there is no alternative to international cooperation,” said Michael Bender, ZMWG Coordinator. ”Let’s turn these good intentions into meaningful action on the ground so that developing countries don’t bear the brunt of toxic trade.”

 With the momentum created in Kumamoto this week, and the prospect of financial and technical support coming during the next years, the group believes that the Minamata Convention can set a new standard for the speed of ratification for multilateral environmental agreements.

 “Mercury pollution will not wait for the treaty to enter into force.  It is happening now,” said Elena Lymberidi-Settimo, ZWMG coordinator.  “The global community should pursue ratification and implementation with urgency.”


- END -


Richard Gutierrez, BAN Toxics!, T: +63 2 355 7640, This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it "> This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Elena Lymberidi-Settimo, ZMWG International Coordinator,, T: +32 2 2891301, Mobile: +32 496 532818, This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it "> This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

David Lennett, Senior Attorney, Natural Resources Defense Council, T 1-202-289-2380, This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it "> This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Michael Bender, ZMWG International Coordinator, T: +802-917-4579, This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it "> This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it


Background reading:



  1.  Zero Mercury Working Group is an international coalition of over 95 NGOs from more than 50 countries,  see: www.zeromercury.org
  2. This mercury is typically generated within Japan, from metals byproduct generation and other sources.  See: http://comtrade.un.org/db/dqBasicQueryResultsd.aspx?action=print&;px=H3&cc=280540&r=392, viewed August 23, 2013.  Note:  to view the UN Comtrade database, please see instructions at: http://unstats.un.org/unsd/tradekb/Knowledgebase/How-to-query-data-from-UN-Comtrade.  The commodity code for mercury is (HS 2007) 280540.
  3. Such as Colombia, Brazil, Indonesia, Viet Nam.
  4. See http://comtrade.un.org/db/dqBasicQueryResults.aspx?y=2012&;cc=280540&px=H3&so=9999&rpage=dqBasicQuery&qt=n, viewed August 23, 2013.  Spain exported a larger quantity of mercury in 2012, but virtually all the trade stayed within the European Union.
  5. See http://comtrade.un.org/db/dqBasicQueryResultsd.aspx?action=print&;px=H3&cc=280540&r=702, viewed August 23, 2013.
  6. See http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-05-24/the-slippery-market-for-mercury#p4.
  7. See http://comtrade.un.org/db/dqBasicQueryResultsd.aspx?action=print&;px=H3&cc=280540&r=702, viewed August 23, 2013.